The Rich Man and Lazarus
E.W. BullingerIn dealing with this Scripture, and the subject of the so-called intermediate state, it is important that we should confine ourselves to the Word of God, and not go to tradition. Yet, when nine out of ten believe what they have learned from tradition, we have a thankless task, so far as pleasing man is concerned. We might give our own ideas as the employment’s, etc., of the departed, and man would deal leniently with us. But let us only put God’s Revelation against man’s imagination, and then we shall be made to feel his wrath, and experience his opposition.
Claiming, however, to have as great love and jealousy for
the Word of God as any of our brethren; and as sincere a
desire to find out what God says, and what God means: we
claim also the sympathy of all our fellow members of the
Body of Christ.
There are several matters to be considered before we can
reach the Scripture concerning the rich man and Lazarus; or
arrive at a satisfactory conclusion as to the state after
death.
It will be well for us to remember that all such expressions
as the Intermediate State, Church Triumphant, and others
similar to them are unknown to Scripture. They have been
inherited by us from tradition, and have been accepted
without thought or examination.
“Ye were…redeemed..from your vain conversation received by
tradition from your fathers.” (1 Pet. 1:18)
WHAT IS DEATH?
Putting aside, therefore, all that we have thus been taught,
let us see what God actually does reveal to us in Scripture
concerning man, in life, and in death; and concerning the
state and condition of the dead.
Psalm 146:4 declares of man:
His breath goeth forth, He returneth to his earth;
In that very day his thoughts perish.
God is here speaking of man; not of some part of man, but of
princes, and manor any son of man(v. 3), i.e. Any and every
human being begotten or born of human parents.
There is not a word about a disembodied man. No such
expression is to be found in the Scriptures! The phrase is
man’s own invention in order to make this and other
scriptures agree with his tradition.
This Scripture speaks of man as man. His breath; he
returneth; his thoughts. It is an unwarrantable liberty to
put body when the Holy Spirit has put man. The passage says
nothing about the body. It is whatever has done the
thinking. The body does not think. The body apart from the
spirit has no thoughts. Whatever has had the thoughts has
them no more; and this is man.
If this were the only statement in Scripture on the subject
it would be sufficient. But there are many others. There is
Ecclesiastes 9:5, which declares that:
The dead know not anything.
This also seems so clear that there could be no second
meaning. The dead are the dead; they are those who have
ceased to live; and, if the dead do or can know anything,
then words are useless for the purpose of revelation. The
word dead, here is used in the immediate context as the
opposite of the living,e.g.:
The living know that they shall die, But the dead know not anything.
It does not say dead bodies know not anything, but the dead,i.e. dead people, who are set in contrast with the living. As one of these living, David says, by the Holy Spirit (Psalm 146:2, 104:33)
While I live will I praise the Lord:
I will sing praises unto my God while I have any being.
There would be no praising after he ceased to live. Nor
would there be any singing of praises after he had cease to
have any being. Why? Because princes and the son of man are
helpless (Psalm 146:3,4). They return to their earth; and
when they die, their thoughts perish: and they know not
anything.
This is what God says about death. He explains it to us
Himself. We need not therefore ask any man what it is. And
if we did, his answer would be valueless, inasmuch as it is
absolutely impossible for him to know anything of death,
i.e. the death-state, beyond what God has told us in
Scripture. We find the answer is just as clear and decisive
in Psalm 104:29,30:
Thou takest away their breath (Hebrew- spirit), they die,
And return to their dust:
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created:
And thou renewest the face of the earth.
With this agrees Ecclesiastes 12:7, in which we have a categorical statement as to what takes place at death:
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
And the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.
Neither the dust nor the “spirit” had any previous, separate, independent consciousness before their union, which made the “living soul, or after that union is broken, when man becomes what Scripture calls a dead soul. The other Scriptures we have quoted, and shall quote show that there is no such separate, independent consciousness after that union has been dissolved. The prayer in I Thessalonians 5:23 is that these three may be found and preserved entire…at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ(R.V.): i.e. preserved alive till (or at) that coming; and not to die and be separated before it.
This is the condition of man when this tabernacle has been put off (2 Peter 1:14), and when he is “unclothed” (2 Corinthians 5:4). Once separated from each other, we are shut up to the blessed hope of being reunited in resurrection. This is why the death of believers is so often called “sleep”; and dying is called “falling asleep” because of the assured hope of awaking in resurrection. It is not called “the sleep of the body” as many express it; or “the sleep of the soul.” Scripture knows nothing of either expression. Its language is, “David fell asleep” (Acts 13:36), not David’s body or David’s soul. “Stephen…fell asleep” (Acts 7:60). “Lazarus sleepeth” (John 11:11), which is explained, when the Lord afterward speaks “plainly” as meaning “Lazarus is dead” (v 14).
Now, when the Holy Spirit uses one thing to describe or
explain another, He does not choose the opposite word or
expression. If He speaks of night, He does not use the word
light. If He speaks of daylight, He does not use the word
night. He does not put ïsweet for bitter, and bitter for
sweet(Isaiah 5:20). He uses adultery to illustrate Idolatry;
He does not use virtue. And so, if He uses the word sleep of
death, it is because sleep illustrates to us what the
condition of death is like. If tradition be the truth, He
ought to have used the word awake, or wakefulness.
But the Lord first uses a figure, and says Lazarus sleepeth;
and afterwards, when he speaks plainly He says Lazarus is
dead. Why? Because sleep expresses and describes the
condition of the unclothed state. In normal sleep, there is
no consciousness. For the Lord, therefore, to have used this
word sleep to represent the very opposite condition of
conscious wakefulness, would have been indeed to mislead us.
But all His words are perfect; and are used for the purpose
of teaching us, and not for leading us astray.
Traditionalists, however, who say that death means life, do not hesitate to say also that to fall asleep means to wake up! A friend vouches for a case, personally known to him, of one who (though a firm believer in tradition) was, through a fall, utterly unconscious for two weeks. Had he died during that period, traditionalists would, we presume, say that the man woke up and returned to consciousness when he died! But, if this be so, what does it mean when it says,
I will behold thy face in righteousness:
I shall be satisfied, when I awake with thy likeness?
If death is waking up, what is the waking in this verse? Surely it is resurrection, which is the very opposite of falling asleep in death. Indeed, this is why sleep is used of the Lord’s people. To them it is like going to sleep; for when they are raised from the dead they will surely wake again according to the promise of the Lord; and they shall awake in His own likeness.
WHAT IS LIFE?
And if we ask what life is, the answer from God is given in
Gen. 2:7:
The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground,
And breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,
And man became a living soul.
So that the body apart from the spirit cannot be the man;
and the spirit apart from the body is not the man; but it is
the union of the two that makes a living soul. The Hebrew is
nephesh chaiyah, translated soul of life or living soul.
What it really means can be known only by observing how the
Holy Spirit Himself uses it. In this very chapter (Gen.
2:19) it is used of the whole animate creation, generally;
and is rendered “living creature. Four times it is used in
the previous chapter (Gen. 1.):
1) In verse 20 it is used of fishes, and is translated
moving creature that hath life.ï
2) In verse 21 it is used of the great sea monsters, and is
translated living creature.
3) In verse 24 it is used of cattle and beasts of the earth,
and is again rendered living creature.
4) In verse 30 it is used of every beast of the earth, and
every fowl of the air, and every living thing that creepeth
upon the earth wherein there is (i.e. to which there is)
life. Margin Heb. living soul.
Four times in chapter 9 it is also rendered ïliving
creature, and is used of all flesh. See verses 10, 12, 15,
16.
Twice in Leviticus 11 it is used: in verse 10 of all fishes, and is rendered living thing. In verse 46 of all beasts, birds, and fishes, and is translated living creature.
Only once (Gen. 2:7) when it is used of man, has it been translated living soul– as though it there meant something quite different altogether.
Surely one rendering should serve for all these passages, and thus enabled Bible students to learn what God teaches on this important subject.
This then is God’s answer to our question, what is life? The
teaching of Scripture is (as we have seen) that man consists
of two parts: body and spirit; and that the union of these
two makes a third thing, which is called soul or living
soul. Hence the word soul is used of the whole personality;
the living ‘organism’ e.g. Gen. 12:5:
Abram took Sarai his wife…and the souls (i.e. the persons)
whom they had gotten in Haran.(Genesis 12:5)
And Esau took his wives…and all the persons (margin. Hebrew
– souls) of his house.(Genesis 36:6)
All the souls (i.e. persons) which came with Jacob into
Egypt.(Genesis 46″15.26)
As persons, souls have blood:
In thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor
innocents.(Jeremiah 2:34)
Hence, souls (as persons) are said to be destroyed: Lev.
5:1, 2, 4, 15, 17; 6:2; 17:11, 12. Numbers 15:30. See also
Joshua 10:20, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39.
The soul, being the person, is said to be bought and sold.
See Lev. 22:11, and Rev. 18:13, where the word soul is used
of slaves.
Hence, also, when the body returns to dust and the spirit
returns to God, the person is called a dead soul,i.e. a dead
person. That is why it says:
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. (Ezekiel 18:4)
He spared not their soul from death. (Psalm 78:50)
What the breath of life is in Genesis 2:7, is explained for
us in Gen. 7:22, where we read that every thing died, all in
whose nostrils was the breath of life.Margin, Hebrew – the
breath of the spirit of life, which is a still stronger
expression, and is used of the whole animate creation that
died in the flood.
But such are the exigencies of traditionalists, that often
the word nephesh (soul) is actually rendered “body.
“Neither shall he go in to any dead body (Hebrew – soul)
(Leviticus 21:11)
He shall come at no dead body (Hebrew – soul). (Numbers 6:6)
It is the same in Numbers 9:6,7,10; and 19:11, 13. It is
also used of the “dead” in Leviticus 22:4 and Hagai 2:13. In
none of these passages is there a word in the margin of
either the A.V. or R.V. to indicate that the translators are
thus rendering the Hebrew word nephesh (soul) by the word
“body”.
Again, Sheol is the Hebrew word used in the Old Testament for the grave, or death-state, and Hades is the corresponding Greek word for it in the New Testament. It is Hades in Luke 16:23; and not Gehenna, which means hell.
HADES A PLACE OF SILENCE
The Scriptures are also positive and numerous which declare
that Hades, where the Rich Man is said to be buried is
always represented as a place of silence. There is no work,
nor device, nor knowledge in the grave (Heb. Sheol) whither
thou goest (Ecc. 9:10).
But the rich man, here, was making “devices”, based on his
“knowledge”. Of those who are there it is written:
“Their love, and their hatred, and their envy is now
perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in
anything that is done under the sun (Ecclesiastes 9:6).
But the rich man is represented as having love for his
brethren; and as having a portion in what is being done on
earth. The Psalms declare that:
In death there is no remembrance of Thee,
In the grave (Hebrew – Sheol) who shall give Thee
thanks?(Psalm 66:5)
Let them be silent in the grave (Hebrew – Sheol). (Psalm
31:17)
The dead praise not the Lord;
Neither any that go down into silence (Psalm 115:17)
The Scriptures everywhere speak of the dead as destitute of
knowledge or speech; (see Psalms 30:9; 88:11; Isaiah
38:18,19); and as knowing nothing till resurrection. If
these Scriptures are to be believed (as they most surely
are), then it is clear that the teaching of tradition is not
true, which says that death is not death, but only life in
some other form.
THE DECENT INTO HELL
Hades means the ‘grave‘ (Heb. Sheol): not in heathen
mythology, but in the Word of God. It was in hades the Lord
Jesus was put: for ïHe was buried. As to His Spirit, He
said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit (Luke
23:46). And as to His body, it was laid in a sepulchre. Of
this burial He says:
Thou wilt not leave my soul (i.e. me. Myself) in Sheol (or
Hades), Neither wilt Thou suffer Thy holy one to see
corruption.(Psalm 16:10)
These two lines are strictly parallel; and the second
expands and explains the first.
Hence, sheol (Greek, hades) is the place where corruption is
seen. And resurrection is the only way of exit from it. This
is made perfectly clear by the Divine commentary on the
passage in the New Testament. We read in Acts 2:31:
He (David) seeing this before spake of the resurrection of
Christ, that his soul (i.e. he) was not left in hades;
neither his flesh did see corruption.
To make it still more clear, it is immediately added, and
expressly stated, that David is not yet ascended into the
heavens(v. 34), and therefore had not been raised from the
dead. Note, it does not say David’s body, but David. This is
another proof that resurrection is the only way of entrance
into heaven.
But this passage (Psalm 16:10) is again referred to in Acts
13:34-37, and here we have the same important lesson
restated:
And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now
no more to return to corruption, he saith…thou shalt not
suffer thine Holy One to see corruption…For David fell on
sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption.
But he whom God raised again saw no corruption.
He saw it not, because He was raised from the dead, and thus
brought out of the Sepulchre, where He had been buried.
This is the teaching of the Word of God. It knows nothing
whatever of a descent into hellas separate, and distinct,
from His burial. That is tradition pure and simple.
THE APOSTLES’ CREED
Not one of the Ancient Creeds of the Church knew anything of
it. Up to the seventh century they all said And was buried
and nothing more. But the Creed used in the Church of
Aquileia (A.D. 400), instead of saying buried, had the words
,he descended into hell, but only as an equivalent for he
was buried. This was of course quite correct.
These are the words of Bishop Pearson (Exposition of the
Creed, Fourth Edition 1857, pp. 402-403):
ïI observe that in the Aquileian Creed, where this article
was first expressed, there was no mention of Christ’s
burial; but the words of their Confession ran thus,
crucified under Pontius Pilate, he descended in inferna.
From whence there is no question but the observation of
Ruffinus (fl. 397), who first expounded it, was most true,
that though the Roman and Oriental Creeds had not these
words, yet they had the sense of them in the word buried. It
appeareth, therefore, that the first intention of putting
these words in the Creed was only to express the burial of
our Saviour, or the descent of his body into the grave. In a
note he adds that the same may be observed in the Athanasian
Creed, which has the descent, but not the Sepulchre (i.e.
the burial)…Nor is this observable only in these two, but
also in the Creed made at Sirmium, and produced at
Ariminim(A.D. 359).
By the incorporation of the words ïhe descended into hellin the Apostles’ Creed and the retention of the word buried, tradition obtained an additional article of faith quite distinct from the fact of the Lord’s burial. This is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of history. Not only are these historical facts vouched for by Bishop Pearson, but by Archbishop Ussher, and in more recent times by the late Bishop Harold-Browne in his standard work on the Thirty-Nine Articles.
Those who have been brought up on The Apostles’ Creed
naturally read this spurious additional article ïhe
descended into hell, into Luke 23:43 and I Peter 3:19, and
of course find it difficult to believe that those passages
have nothing whatever to do with that descent. They are thus
led into the serious error of substituting man’s tradition
for God’s revelation.
THE SPIRITS IN PRISON
This tradition about the descent into hell led directly to a
misunderstanding of I Peter 3:17-22. But note:
1) There is not a word about hell, or hades, in the passage.
2) The word spirit, by itself, is never used, without
qualification, of man in any state or condition; but it is
constantly used of angels, of whom it is said, He maketh his
angels spirits,i.e. they are spiritual beings, while a man
is a human being.
3) In spite of these being ïin-prison spirits, they are
taken to refer to men; notwithstanding that in the next
epistle (II Peter 2:4) we read of ïthe angels that
sinned,and of their being ïcast down to tartarus (not hades
or gehenna), and delivered into chains of darkness to be
reserved unto the judgment. These angels are again mentioned
in connection with Noah and are thus identified with the
spirits (or angels) in 1 Peter 3:19, who were also
disobedient “in the days of Noah.” We read, further, what
their sin was, in Jude 6,7 which can be understood only by
reference to Genesis 6. Here again we read of these angels
being “reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto
the judgment of the great day. It is surprising that, in the
face of these two passages (II Peter 2:4 and Jude 6, 7),
which speak of angels (or spirits) being ïin chains, anyone
should ever have interpreted the ïin-prison spirits of I
Peter 3:19 as referring to human beings!
4) Moreover, the word preached does not, by itself, refer to
the preaching of the Gospel. It is not evangelise,which
would be evangelizo. But it is kerusso, to proclaim as a
herald, to make proclamation, and the context shows that
this paragraph about Christ is intended as an encouragement.
It begins with verse 17: For it is better, if the will of
God be so, that ye suffer for well-doing than for
evil-doing. For Christ also suffered for sins, the just for
the unjust, that he might bring us to God. Then it goes on
to explain that as Christ suffered for well-doing, and not
for evil-doing, they were to do the same; and if they did
they would have, like Him, a glorious triumph. For though He
was put to death in the flesh, yet He was made alive again
in spirit (i.e. in a spiritual body, I Corinthians 15:44):
and in this He made such proclamation of His triumph that it
reached even to tartarus, and was heard there by the angels
reserved in chains unto judgment. Never mind, therefore, if
you are called to suffer. You will have a like glorious
triumph.
No other explanation of this passage takes in the argument
of the context; or complies with the strict requirements of
the original text. Thus the support for the tradition about
Christ’s descent into hell as distinct from His being
buried, vanishes from the Scriptures.
Eph. 4:9 also speaks of the Lord’s descent ïinto the lower
parts of the earth before His ascension on high. But this
word here is what is called the genitive of apposition, by
which of the earth explains what is meant by ïthe lower
parts and should be rendered ïthe lower parts ,that is to
say the earth.
This descension stands in contrast with His ascension He
that descended is the same also that ascended (v. 10). It
refers to His descent from heaven in Incarnation, and not to
any descent as distinct from that, or from His burial.
SATAN’S FIRST GREAT LIE
But tradition is only handing down of the Old Serpent’s lie
which deceived our first parents. God said, Thou shalt
SURELY die (Gen. 2:17). Satan said Thou shalt NOT surely
die(Gen. 3:4). And all traditionalists and spiritists agree
with Satan in saying, There is no such thing as death; it is
only life in some other form.
God speaks of death as an “enemy” (1 Corinthians 15:26)
Man speaks of it as a friend.
God speaks of it as a “terminus”:
Man speaks of it as a gate.
God speaks of it as a “calamity”:
Man speaks of it as a blessing
God speaks of it as a “fear” and a “terror”:
Man speaks of it as hope.
God speaks delivering from it as shewing “mercy”:
Man, strange to say, says the same! and loses no opportunity
of seeking such deliverance by using every means in his
power.
In Philippians 2:27 we read that Epaphroditus was sick unto
death; but God had mercy on him. So that it was mercy to
preserve Epaphroditus from death. This could hardly be
called mercy if death were the gate of glory, according to
popular tradition.
In II Corinthians 1:10, 11, it was deliverance of no
ordinary kind when Paul himself also was delivered from so
great a death which called for corresponding greatness of
thanksgiving for God’s answer to their prayers on his
behalf. Moreover, he trusted that God would still deliver
him: for he was not then in prison, as he was some four or
five years later, when death would have been a “gain”
(Philippians 1:21) compared with his bonds and his
sufferings in a Roman dungeon.
Hezekiah also had reason to praise God for delivering him from the king of terrors.It was mercy shown to Epaphroditus; it was a gift to Paul; it was love to Hezekiah. He says:
Thou hast in love to my soul (i.e. to me) delivered it (i.e. me) from the pit of corruption. For thou has cast all my sins behind thy back. For the grave (Hebrew – sheol) cannot praise thee, death cannot celebrate thee: They that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day.” (Isaiah 38:17-19)
On the other hand the death of Moses was permitted, for it was his punishment, therefore, there was no deliverance for him though he sought it (Deut. 1:37; 3:23, 27; 4:21, 22; 31:2). Surely it could have been no punishment if death is not death; but, as is universally held, the gate of paradise! In Philippians 1:21, death would have been Paul’s gain,for Paul was not on Pisgah, but in prison; and it would have been a happy issue out of his then afflictions.
So effectually has Satan’s lie succeeded, and accomplished
its purpose that, though the Lord Jesus said ïI will come
again and receive you unto myself, Christendom says, with
one voice, No! Lord. Thou needest not to come for me: I will
die and come to Thee. Thus the blessed hope of resurrection
and the coming of the Lord have been well nigh blotted out
from the belief of the Churches; and the promise of the Lord
been made of none effect by the ravages of tradition.
Men may write their books, and a spiritist may entitle one
There is no death, etc. They may sing words and expressions
which are foreign to the Scriptures, about the Church
triumphant. They may speak of having passed on; and about
the home-going; and the great beyond; and the border-land;
and beyond the veil; but against all this we set a special
revelation from God, introduced by the prophetic formula,
the Word of the Lord”.
THE REVELATION OF 1 THESSALONIANS 4:15
This we say unto you by the Word of the Lord that we which
are alive and remain shall not precede (R.V.) them which are
asleep (I Thessalonians 4:15).
To agree with tradition this ought to have been written,
shall not precede them which are already with the Lord. But
this would have made nonsense; and there is nothing of that
in the Word of God. There are many things in Scripture
difficult; and hard to be understood: there are many figures
of speech also; but there are no self-contradictory
statements such as that would have been.
Moreover, we ought to note that this special Divine
revelation was given for the express purpose that we might
not be ignorant on this subject, as the heathen and
traditionalists were. This revelation of God’s truth as to
the state of the dead is introduced by the noteworthy words
in verse 13:
I would not have you ignorant, brethren, concerning them
that are asleep.
Unless, therefore, we know what the Lord has revealed, we
must all alike remain ignorant”. What is revealed here by
the Word of the Lord, is:
1) That as the Lord Jesus was brought again from the dead
(Hebrews 13:20), so will His people be. If we believe that
Jesus died, and rose again, even so (we believe that) them
also which sleep in (R.V. margin, through) Jesus will God
bring with him (i.e. bring again from the dead), even as the
Lord Jesus died and rose again(v. 14).
2) That we which are alive and remain till His coming shall
not precede those who have fallen on sleep.
3) And therefore they cannot be with the Lord before us (v.
15).
4) The first thing to happen will be their resurrection.
They are called the dead in Christ. Not the living, but the
dead, for resurrection concerns only the dead(v. 16).
5) The next thing is we, the living, shall be caught up
together with them to meet the Lord in the air (v. 17). Not
(as many people put it) to meet our friends, who are
supposed to be already there; but to meet the Lord Himself
(v. 17).
6) Finally, it is revealed that this is the manner in which
we shall be with the Lord. The word is houtos thus, so, in
this manner, and in no other way.
Those who do not know the truths here given by special
Divine revelation have invented other ways of getting there.
They say the death is the gate of glory. God says that
resurrection and ascension is the gate.
It is the tradition that those who have fallen asleep are
already in heaven that has given rise to the idea of the
Church Triumphant. But no such expression can be found in
Scripture. Eph. 3:15 is supposed to teach or support it,
when it speaks of-
THE WHOLE FAMILY IN HEAVEN AND EARTH
But it is by no means necessary to translate the words in
this way. The R.V. and the American R.V. render them every
family in heaven and earth so does the A.V. also in Eph.
1:21, where we have the same subject, viz. the giving of
names (as onomazo, in both places, means. See Luke 6:13) to
some of these heavenly families, e.g. principality and
power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is
named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come.
It is not the whole family that is named; but every family
has its own name given to it. A few verses before Eph. 3:15
we have two more of these families, “principalities and
powers(v. 10). Why then create a new thing altogether by
forcing verse 17 apart from its context? These families in
heaven are clearly set in contrast with the family of God
upon earth. In verse 10 the earthly family is used as an
object lesson to the heavenly family.
Now, these being the positive and clear statements of
revelation as to man in life and in death, there are certain
passages in the New Testament which seem to speak with a
different voice, and to bear a different testimony. We say
advisedly seem; for when properly understood, and accurately
translated, not only is there no difference or opposition to
the teaching of the Old Testament, but there is perfect
harmony and unity in their testimony. The one corroborates
and supports the other.
There are five passages which are generally relied on and
referred to by traditionalists viz (1) Matthew 22:32; (2)
Luke 23:43; (3) 2 Corinthians 5:6,8; (4) Philippians 1:23;
(5) Luke 16:19-31. We will deal with them in this order.
THE GOD OF THE LIVING
Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:27; Luke 2:38
In these scriptures it is stated that God is not the God of
the dead, but of the living. But traditionalists, believing
that the idea dare the living, making God the God of the
dead, which He distinctly says He is not. Interpreting the
words in this way, they utterly ignore the whole context,
which shows that the words refer to the resurrection, and
not to the dead at all. Notice how this is emphasized in
each Gospel:
1) Then come unto Him the Sadducees, which say there is no
“resurrection(Matt. 22:23. Mark 12:18. Luke 20:27).
(2) The one issue raised by the Sadducees was the question,
Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection?(Matt. 22:28.
Mark 12:23. Luke 20:33).
3) The answer of our Lord deals solely with this one issue,
which was resurrection.
Hence He says:
1) Matt. 22:31; as touching the resurrection of the dead.
2) Mark 12:26, as touching the dead that they rise.
3) Luke 20, ïnow that the dead are raised, even Moses showed
at the bush, when he called the Lord, the God of Abraham,
and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, for he is not a
God of the dead, but of the living, for all live unto him
(v. 38).
These words were spoken by the Lord Jesus in order to prove
that the dead are raised. Traditionalists use them to prove
that the dead are living without being raised! The Sadducees
may have denied many other things, but the one and the only
thing in question here is resurrection. Christ’s argument
was:
1. God’s words at the bush prove a life for the dead
patriarchs.
2. But there is no life for the dead without a resurrection.
3. Therefore they must be raised from the dead or live again
by Him.
This argument held good, for it silenced the Sadducees. For
if they are living now, and not dead, how does that prove a
resurrection? And, moreover, what is the difference between
them and those who are in ïthe land of the living? For this
is the expression constantly used of the present condition
of life in contrast with the state of death. See Psalm
27:13; 56:13; 116:9; 142:5; Jeremiah 11:19; Ezekiel 26:20.
In this last passage the contrast is very pointed; where God
speaks of bringing down to death and the grave and setting
His glory ïin the land of the living. The argument as to
resurrection was so conclusive to the Scribes who heard Him,
that they said, Master, thou has well said. And after that
they durst not ask him any questions at all(Luke 20:39, 40).
We may as well consider in connection with this, the case of
Moses and Elijah appearing on the Mount of Transfiguration.
With regard to this, it is surely enough for us to remember
that Elijah never died at all; (*note: although he had to
have died sometime because Elijah cannot possibly be
immortal, since ONLY Christ has immortality, 1 Tim. 6:16,
John 3:13) and that Moses, though he died, was buried by
God. The mysteriousness of his burial, and the contest and
dispute between Satan (who has the power of death, Hebrews
2:14) and Michael the Archangel about “the body of Moses”
(Jude 9), points to the fact of his subsequent resurrection.
It could hardly have been other than about its being raised
from the dead. Christ has now “the keys of the grave and of
death” (Revelation 1:18). For “He was declared to be the Son
of God in power by a resurrection of dead persons” (Romans
1:4 and Matthew 27:52-54). Christ was the first who “rose”
(i.e. of His Own Divine power, but not the first who was
“raised” by the power of God. He called the “first-fruits of
them that slept” (1 Corinthians 15:20, 23), in relation to
the future harvest, not in relation to past resurrections.
CHRIST’S WORDS TO THE DYING MALEFACTOR – Luke 23:43
To-day shalt thou be with me in Paradise. This can mean only
Verily I say unto thee this day, thou shalt be with me in
Paradise.
In the first place we must remember that the punctuation is
not inspired. It is only of human authority. There is none
whatever in the Greek manuscripts. We have, therefore,
perfect liberty to criticize and alter man’s use of it, and
to substitute our own.
The verb say when used with to-day, is sometimes separated
from it by the word oti hoti (that); and sometimes it is
joined with it by the absence of hot. The Holy Spirit uses
these words with perfect exactness, and it behooves us to
learn what He would thus teach us.
When He puts the word hot (that) between say and to-day, it throws to-day into what is said, and cuts it off from the verb say, e.g. Luke 19:9, Jesus said…that (Gr. hoti) this day is salvation come to this house. Here to-day is joined with the verb come, and separated from the verb I say. So also in Luke 4:21 And he began to say unto them that (hoti) this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. Here again the presence of hoti cuts off to-day from say and joins it with fulfilled.
But this is not the case in Luke 23:43. Here the Holy Spirit has carefully excluded the word hoti (that). How then dare anyone to read the verse as though He had not excluded it, and read it as though it said ïI say unto thee, that this day,etc. It is surely adding to the Word of God to insert, or imply the insertion of the word that when the Holy Spirit has not used it; as He has in two other places in this same Gospel (Luke 4:21; 19:9).
We are now prepared to see that we must translate Luke 23:43 in this manner, Verily I say to thee this day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise.The prayer was answered. It referred to the future, and so did the promise; for, when the Lord shall have come in His Kingdom, the only Paradise the Scripture knows of will be restored.
Further we must note that the formula ïI say unto thee this day,was a well known Hebrew idiom used to emphasized the solemnity of the occasion and the importance of the words. See Deuteronomy 4:26, 29, 40; 5:6; 6:6; 7:11; 8:1, 11, 19; 9:3; 10:13; 11:2, 8, 13, 18, 27, 28, 32; 13:18; 15:5; 19:9; 26:3, 17, 18; 27:1, 4, 10; 28:1, 13, 14, 15; 24:12; 30:2, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 18; 32:46. The expression, therefore, ïI say unto thee this day,marks the wonderful character of the man’s faith; which, under such circumstances, could still believe in, and look forward to the coming kingdom; and acknowledge that Christ was the King, though on that very day He was hanging on the Cross.
ABSENT FROM THE BODY – 2 CORINTHIANS 5:6,8
The third passage, II Corinthians 5:6, 8, we have dealt with
in Things to Come for July, 1902 (Volume 9, page 3), and in
The Church Epistles, page 103, where we have shown that ïto
be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord, was
the inspired desire of the Apostle, which could be realized
only in resurrection. Resurrection (and not death) is the
subject of the whole context.
These words are generally misquoted Absent from the body,
present with the Lord,as though it said that when we are
absent from the body we are present with the Lord. But no
such sentence can be found. No less than nine words are
deliberately omitted from the context when the quotation is
thus popularly made. The omission of these words creates
quite a new sense, and puts the verse out of all harmony
with the context; the object of which is to show that we
cannot be present with the Lord except by being clothed upon
with our resurrection body, our ïhouse which is from heaven.
We might with equal justice quote the words hang all the law
and the prophets,and leave out on these two commandments
(Matt. 22:40); or say there is no God and leave out The fool
hath said in his heart(Psalm 53:1), or say Ye shall not
drink wine, and leave out Ye have planted pleasant
vineyards, but (ye shall not drink wine) of them(Amos 5:11);
or talk about the restitution of all things and leave out
which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy
prophets(Acts 3:21). All these partial quotations are
correct so far as the text is concerned, but what about the
context? The context is,
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent
from the body, and to be present with the Lord (v. 8).
By omitting the words printed in bold the sense is entirely
changed. Being at home in the body in both verses is
explained, in verse 3 as being in this tabernacle, which, in
v. 1, is called our earthly house of this tabernacle; and
being present (or at home with) the Lord is explained in
verse 2 as being clothed upon with our house which is from
heaven. The Apostle distinctly says, on the one hand, that
he did not wish to die (v. 4, not that we would be
unclothed); and on the other hand, he was not merely willing
rather but earnestly desiring to be clothed upon(v.2). It is
true that some years later he did say to die is gain; but as
we have seen above, the circumstances were very different,
for he was then in prison. This brings us to the expression:
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart,
and to be with Christ; which is far better: nevertheless to
abide in the flesh is more needful for you. (Philippians
1:23-24)
PAUL’S DESIRE IN PHILIPPIANS 1:23
Philippians 1:23, we have dealt with in Things to Come,
February 1900, Volume 6, page 87; The Church Epistles, pages
157-8; and in Figures of Speech, pages 206, 415-6. We have
there shown that the desire of the Apostle was not to depart
himself, by dying; but his desire was for the return of
Christ; the verb rendered depart being used elsewhere in the
New Testament only in Luke 12:36, where it is rendered
return: when he shall return from the wedding. May we not
fairly ask, Why are we not to translate it in the same way
in Philippians 1:23?
The preposition ana, again, when compounded with the verb
luo, to loosen, means to loosen back again to the place from
whence the original departure was made, not to set out to a
new place; hence, analuo means to loosen back again or to
return, and it is so rendered in the only other place where
it occurs in the New Testament, Luke 12:36: when he shall
return from the wedding. It does not mean to depart, in the
sense of setting off from the place where one is, but to
return to the place that one has left. The verb does not
occur in the Greek translation of the Canonical books of the
Old Testament, but it does occur in the Apocryphal books,
which though of no authority in the establishment of
doctrine, are invaluable as to the use and meaning of words.
In these books, this word always means to return, and is
generally so translated.
But there is another fact with regard to Philippians 1:23.
The English verb depart occurs 130 times in the New
Testament; and is used as the rendering of 22 different
Greek words. But this one verb (analuo) occurs only twice,
and is rendered depart only once; the other occurrence being
rendered return, and used by the Lord Himself of His own
return from heaven.
We must also further note that it is not the simple
infinitive of the verb to return. It is a combination of
three words: the preposition (eis) unto, and the definite
article (to) the, with the aorist infinitive (analusai) to
return; so that the verb must be translated as a noun —
having a strong desire unto the return; i.e. of Christ, as
in Luke 12:36.
The Apostle’s argument is that for himself, it would be
better to die than to live. It would be a “gain”, for it
would release him from his bonds, and his imprisonment, and
from all his trials. For them, it would be better that he
should live on in the flesh. But the return of Christ would
be better than either, both for them and for him.
The translation of the verse in light of this figure and the
context compels us to observe the parenthesis (verse 23) by
with the continuation of one subject is suspended by the
insertion of another subject. The interruption occurs at the
word “labour”, and the resumption of it takes place after
the word “better”. Thus; “what is the fruit of my labour
(yet…better) but to remain in the flesh,” etc..The
translation of the whole passage will therefore stand as
follows:
But if live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour
{yet, what I shall choose I wot not, for I am being pressed
out of these two [i.e. living or dying (vs. 20, 21), by a
third thing (v. 23), viz.], having a strong desire unto the
return (i.e. of Christ), and to be with Christ, which is a
far, far better thing}, but to remain in the flesh is more
needful for you (i.e., better than dying; but not better
than Christ’s return”).
It is for the traditionalists to show how they deal with
these facts. It is not sufficient to say they do not believe
in this our understanding of these passages: they must show
how they dispose of our evidence, and must produce their own
support of their own conclusions.
Here we have four passages which seem to be opposed to those
we have quoted from the Old Testament. Both cannot be true.
We must either explain away the Old Testament passages, or
we must see whether these four passages admit of other
renderings, which remove their apparent opposition. We have
suggested these other renderings, based on ample evidence;
which, not only deprive them of such opposition, but show
that their teaching is in exact accordance with those other
passages.
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
There remains a fifth passage, Luke 16:19-31, commonly
called the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,or of Dives
and Lazarus. It is absolutely impossible that the
traditional interpretation of this can be correct, because
if it were, it would be directly opposed to all other
teaching of Scripture. And the Lord’s words cannot and must
not be so interpreted. If it be Bible truth (as it is) that
the dead know not anything, how could the Lord have taught,
and how can we believe that they do know a very great deal?
If it be that fact that when man’s breath goeth forth, in
that very day his thoughts perish, how can we believe that
he goes on thinking? and not only thinking without a brain,
but putting his thoughts into words, and speaking them
without a tongue?
When the great subject of resurrection is in question, one
of the most solemn arguments employed is that, if there be
no such thing as resurrection, then not only all the dead,
but they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished
(I Corinthians 15:18). This is also the argument which
immediately follows in verse 29 (after the parenthesis in
verses 20-28), and is based upon verse 18.
Else, what are they doing who are being baptized? It is for
dead (corpses) if the dead rise not at all. Why are they
then being baptized for corpses?
Which is,of course, the case, if they are not going to rise
again.
We are expressly enjoined by the Lord Himself: Marvel not at
this: for the hour is coming in which all that are in the
graves shall hear His voice (John 5:28). These are the
Lord’s own words, and they tell us where His Voice will be
heard; and, that is not in heaven, not in Paradise, or in
any so-called intermediate state, but in the graves.
With this agrees Dan. 12:2, which tells us that those who
awake in resurrection will be those ïhat sleep in the dust
of the earth. It does not say, in Abraham’s bosom, or any
other place, state, or condition, but in the dust of the
earth; from which man was taken(Gen. 2:7; 3:23), and to
which he must return(Gen. 3:19. Ecclesiastes 12:7).
It is, of course, most blessedly true that there is a vast
difference between the saved and the unsaved in this falling
asleep. The former have received the gift of eternal
life(Romans 6:23): not yet in actual fruition; but in
Christ, who is responsible to raise them from the dead (John
6:39), that they may enter upon the enjoyment of it. The
unsaved do not possess eternal life, for it is declared to
be the gift of God (Romans 6:23). No one is responsible for
them, to raise them up. True, they will be raised
(Revelation 20:12,13), but it will be only “the resurrection
of damnation” (John 5:29); for judgment, and to be cast into
the lake of fire. Very different, therefore, are these two
cases. The atonement and resurrection, and ascension of
Christ has made all the difference for His people.
They die like others; but for them it is only falling
asleep. Why? Because they are to wake again. Though dead,
they are now called the dead in Christ, but it remains
perfectly true that we who are alive and remain to the
coming of the Lord shall not precede (R.V.) them. And,
therefore, it follows, of necessity, that they cannot
precede us.
But it is sometimes urged that the Lord led forth a
multitude of captives from Hades to Paradise when He wrested
from Satan his power over death and Hades(Eph. 4:8). But the
fact is that Eph. 4:8 says nothing about Hades or Paradise!
Nothing about multitudes of captives, and nothing about the
state between the moment of His dying and rising. It was
when He ascended up on high that there was this great
triumph for the Lord Jesus Christ. We are not told what were
all the immediate effects of Christ’s death, resurrection
and ascension, in Satan’s realm of evil angels. Col. 2:15
tells us the great fact that He spoiled principalities and
powers. Henceforth He held the keys of death and the grave
(hades) (Revelation 1:18). There was a mighty conflict and a
glorious victory when Christ rose from the dead and
conquered him that had the power of death. In proof and
token of His triumph many(not a few) rose from the dead
(Matthew. 27:52, 53); but these again sleep in Christ
awaiting the return and the final resurrection from the
dead.
We now come to the so-called parable itself. It is evident
that this Scripture (Luke 16:19-31) must be interpreted and
understood in a manner that shall not only not contradict
that plain and direct teaching of all these passages; but on
the contrary, in a manner which must be in perfect and
complete harmony with them: and in such a way that it shall
be necessary for the better understanding of the whole
context in which it stands. That is to say, we must not
explain the Parable apologetically, as though we wished it
were not there; but as though we could not do without it. We
must treat it as being indispensable, when taken with the
context. Let us look first at some of the inconsistencies of
the Traditional Interpreters.
Some of them call it a parable; but the Lord does not so
designate it. It does not even begin by saying He said. It
commences abruptly – There was; without any further guide as
to the reason or meaning of what is said.
Then they follow their own arbitrary will, picking out one
word or expression, which they say is literal; and another,
which they say is parabolic. For example, Abraham’s bosom
is, according to them, parabolic; and denotes Paradise. They
are bound so to take it, because if literal, Abraham’s bosom
would hold only one person! It refers to the act of
reclining at meals, where any one person, if he leaned back,
would be in the bosom of the other. John was so placed with
regard to the Lord Jesus (John 13:23; 21:20), and it was a
token of favor and love (John 19:26; 20:2; 21:7).
Then they take the fire and the water, the tongue and the
flame, etc., as being literal; but when the Lord elsewhere
speaks of the worm that dieth not, they take that as
parabolic, and say it does not mean a worm but conscience.
In all this they draw only on their imagination, and
interpret according to their own arbitrary will.
If we follow out this illogical principle, then according to
them Lazarus was never buried at all; while the rich man
was. For the rich man also died and was buried(v. 22); while
Lazarus, instead of being buried, was carried by the angels
into Abraham’s bosom.
There is the further difficulty as to how a man who has been
actually buried, could think without a brain, or speak
without a tongue. How can the spirit speak, or act apart
from the physical organs of the body? This is a difficulty
our friends cannot get over: and so they have to invent some
theory (which outdoes the Spiritists’ invention of an Astral
body) which has no foundation whatever in fact: and is
absolutely destitute of anything worthy of the name evidence
of any kind whatsoever.
Then again, Hades is never elsewhere mentioned as a place of
fire. On the contrary, it is itself to be cast into the lake
of fire(Rev. 20:14).
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS – Part 2
Moreover, there is this further moral difficulty; in this
parable, which is supposed to treat of the most solemn
realities as to the eternal destiny of the righteous and the
wicked, there is a man who receives all blessing, and his
only merit is poverty. That, for ought that is said, is the
only title Lazarus has for his reward. It is useless to
assume that he might have been righteous as well as poor.
The answer is that the parable does not say a word about it;
and it is perfectly arbitrary for anyone to insert either
the words or the thought. On the other hand, the only sin
for which the rich man was punished with those torments was
his previous enjoyment of good things and his neglect of
Lazarus. But for this neglect, and his style of living, he
might have been as good and moral a man as Lazarus.
Again, if Abraham’s bosom is the same as Paradise, then we
ask, is that where Christ and the thief went according to
the popular interpretation of Luke 23:43? Did they go to
‘Abraham’s bosom’? The fact is, the more closely we look at
tradition, the more glaring are the inconsistencies which it
creates.
The teaching of the Pharisees had much in common with the
teaching of Romanists and Spiritists in the present day. We
have only to refer to the Lord’s words to see what He
thought of the Pharisees and their teachings. He reserved
for them His severest denunciations and woes; and
administered to them His most scathing reprobations. It was
the teaching of the Pharisees, which had made the Word of
God of none effect, that was the very essence of their sin
and its condemnation. Everywhere the Lord refers to this as
bringing down His wrath; and calling forth His woes.The Word
of God said one thing, and the Pharisees said another; they
thus contracted themselves out of the Law of God by their
traditions.
The context shows that the Lord’s controversy with the
Pharisees was now approaching a crisis. It begins, in
chapter 14:35, with the solemn formula, He that hath ears to
hear, let him hear. We are immediately shown who had these
opened ears; for we read (15:1):
Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to
hear him.
And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, This man
receiveth
sinners and eateth with them.
They professed to have the key of knowledge, but they
entered not in themselves; and those who were entering in
they hindered (Matthew 23:13-33). They had the Scriptures,
but they overlaid them with their traditions, and thus made
them of none effect (Matt. 15:19). They were like the Unjust
Steward (Luke 16:1-12) in the parable which immediately
follows Luke 15. For He would explain to His immediate
believing followers the iniquity of these murmuring
Pharisees.
They dealt unjustly with the oracles of God which were
committed unto them (Rom. 3:2). They allowed His
commandments to be disobeyed by others that they might make
gain. In Mark 7:9 the Lord said, Full well ye reject
(margin, frustrate) the commandment of God, that ye may keep
your own tradition. This was said in solemn irony; for they
did not well in the strict meaning of the word, though they
did well, i.e. consistently with their own teaching when
they practically did away with the fifth and seventh
Commandments for their own profit and gain, just as Rome in
later days did away with the doctrine of justification
through faith by the sale of indulgences.(Read carefully
Matthew 15:3-6 and Mark 7:7-13). They were unjust stewards;
and contrary to their teaching, the Lord declared there was
no such thing as little or much when it came to honesty,
especially in dealing with the Word of God; and that, if
they were unfaithful in the least, they would be in much
also, and could not be trusted. The time was at hand when
the sentence would go forth, thou mayest be no longer
steward.
Then in Luke 16:14 we read: The Pharisees also, who were
covetous, heard all these things; and they derided him(v.
14): lit., they turned up their noses at Him! The supreme
moment had come. We may thus paraphrase His words which
follow and lead up to the Parable:
You deride and scoff at Me, as if I were mistaken, and you
were innocent. You seek to justify yourselves before men,
but God knoweth your hearts. You highly esteem your
traditions, but they are abomination in the sight of God (v.
15). The law and the prophets were until John, but you deal
unjustly with them, changing them and wresting them at your
pleasure, by your tradition, and by the false glosses ye
have put upon them.
And when John preached the Kingdom of God, every one used
violence and hostility against it by contradictions,
persecution, and derision (v. 16). And yet, though by your
vain traditions you would make the law void and of none
effect, it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than
for one tittle of the law to fail (v. 17).
Take one instance out of many. It is true that God
permitted, and legislated for, divorce. But ye, by your
traditions and arbitrary system of divorces, have degraded
it for gain. Nevertheless, that law still remains, and will
stand for ever, and he who accepts your teaching on the
subject, and receives your divorces, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery(v. 18).
Then the Lord immediately passes on to the culminating point
of His lesson (v. 19):
There was a certain rich man, etc.
He makes no break. He does not call it, or give it as one of
His own Parables; but He at once goes on to give another
example from the traditions of the Pharisees, in order to
judge them out of their own mouth. A parable of this kind
need not be true in itself, or in fact; though it must be
believed to be true by the hearers, if not by the speaker.
No more than Jotham’s parable of the Trees speaking (Judges
9:7-15). No more than when the Pharisees, on another
occasion, said ïthis fellow doth not cast out devils but by
Beelzebub, the prince of the devils; and He, judging them
out of their own mouth, did not contradict them, nor did He
admit the truth of their words when He replied, If I by
Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast
them out?(Matt. 12:24-27). No! The Lord did not bandy words
in argument with these arch-traditionists, but turned the
tables upon them. It was the same here, in Luke 16. He
neither denied nor admitted the truth of their tradition
when He used their own teachings against themselves.
It was the same in the case of the parable of the pounds a
little later on, when He said, Out of thine own mouth will I
judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an
austere man, taking up what I laid not down, and reaping
that I did not sow(Luke 19:22). The Lord was not, of course,
an austere and unjust man; but He uses the words which those
to whom He was speaking believed to be true; and condemned
them out of their own mouth.
We believe that the Lord is doing the very same thing here.
The framework of the illustration is exactly what the
Pharisees believed and taught. It is a powerful and telling
example of one of their distinctive traditions, by which
they made the teaching of God’s Word of none effect. It is,
of course, adapted by the Lord so as to convey His
condemnation of the Pharisees. He represents the dead as
speaking, but the words put into Abraham’s mouth contain the
sting of what was His own teaching. In verse 18 He had given
an example of their practice in making void the Law of God
as to marriage and divorce; and in the very next verse (19)
He proceeds to give an example of their doctrine to show how
their traditions made void the truth of God; using their
very words as an argument against themselves; and showing,
by His own words, which He puts into Abraham’s mouth (verses
29 and 31), that all these traditions were contrary to God’s
truth.
They taught that the dead could go to and communicate with
the living; the Lord declares that this is impossible; and
that none can go from the dead but by resurrection; ïn
either will they be persuaded, though one rose from the
dead(v. 31). Note, these latter are His own words; He knew
that their traditions were false, and in this very parable
He corrects them. He distinctly declares that no dead person
could go to the living except by resurrection; and that if
one did go it would be useless; for, there was one of the
same name Lazarus, who was raised from the dead shortly
afterward, but their reply was to call a Council, in which
they determined to put Lazarus also to death, as well as
Himself (John 12:10). And when the Lord rose from the dead
they again took counsel, and would not believe (Matt.
28:11-15). Thus the parable is made by the Lord to give
positive teaching as well as negative, and to teach the
truth as well as to correct error.
THE TRADITIONS OF THE PHARISEES
In the Talmud (see the link:, what is the Talmud?) we have
those very traditions gathered up which the Lord refers to
in His condemnation. Many are there preserved which were
current in our Lord’s day. We can thus find out exactly what
these popular traditions were.
In Kiddushin (Treatise on Betrothal), fol. 72, there is
quoted from Juchasin, fol. 75, 2, a long story about what
Levi said of Rabbi Judah: ïThis day he sits in Abraham’s
bosom,i.e. the day he died.
There is a difference here between the Jerusalem and the
Babylonian Talmuds the former says Rabbi Judah was carried
by angels; the latter says that he was placed in Abraham’s
bosom. Here we have again the Pharisees’ tradition as used
against them by our Lord. There was a story of a woman who
had seen six of her sons slain (we have it also in II
Maccabees vii). She heard the command given to kill the
youngest (two-and-a-half years old), and running into the
embraces of her little son, kissed him and said, ïGo thou,
my son, to Abraham my father, and tell him ‘Thus saith thy
mother. Do not thou boast, saying, I built an altar, and
offered my son Isaac. For thy mother hath built seven
altars, and offered seven sons in one day, etc.
(3) Another example may be given out of a host of others:
ïThere are wicked men, that are coupled together in this
world. But one of them repents before death, the other doth
not, so one is found standing in the assembly of the just,
the other in the assembly of the wicked. The one seeth the
other and saith, ‘Woe! And Alas! there is accepting of
persons in this thing. He and I robbed together, committed
murder together; and now he stands in the congregation of
the just, and I, in the congregation of the wicked.’ They
answered him: ‘O thou foolish among mortals that are in the
world! Thou wert abominable and cast forth for three days
after thy death, and they did not lay thee in the grave; the
worm was under thee, and the worm covered thee; which, when
this companion of thine came to understand, he became a
penitent. It was in thy power also to have repented, but
thou dist not’. He saith to them, ‘Let me go now, and become
a penitent’. But they say, ‘O thou foolishest of men, dost
thou not know, that this world in which thou are, is like a
sabbath, and the world out of which thou comest is like the
evening of the sabbath? If thou does not provide something
on the evening of the Sabbath, what wilt thou eat on the
Sabbath day? Dost thou not know that the world out of which
thou camest is like the land; and the world, in which thou
now art, is like the sea? If a man make no provision on land
for what he should eat at sea, what will he have to eat?’ He
gnashed his teeth, and gnawed his own flesh.
We have examples also of the dead discoursing with one
another; and also with those who are still alive R. Samuel
Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, How doth it appear
that the dead have any discourse among themselves? It
appears from what is said (Deut.34:4), And the Lord said
unto him, This is the land, concerning which I sware unto
Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying. What is the meaning
of the word saying? The Holy Blessed God saith unto Moses,
‘Go thou and say to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the oath
which I sware unto you, I have performed unto your
children’. Note that ‘Go thou and say to Abraham,’ etc. Then
follows a story of a certain pious man that went and lodged
in a burying place, and heard two souls discoursing among
themselves. The one said unto the other, ‘Come, my
companion, and let us wander about the world, and listen
behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the
world’. To which the other replied, ‘O my companion, I
cannot; for I am buried in a cane mat; but do thou go and
whatsoever thou hearest, do thou come and tell me’,etc. The
story goes on to tell of the wandering of the soul and what
he heard, etc. There was a good man and a wicked man that
died; as for the good man, he had no funeral rites
solemnized; but the wicked man had. Afterward, there was one
who saw in his dream, the good man walking in gardens, and
hard by pleasant springs; but the wicked man with his tongue
trickling drop by drop, at the bank of a river, endeavouring
to touch the water, but he could not”.
6. As to ïthe great gulf, we read, God hath set the one
against the
other (Ecc. vii. 14) that is Gehenna and Paradise. How far
are they
distant? A hand-breadth. Jochanan saith, A wall is between.
But the
Rabbis say They are so even with one another, that they may
see out
of one into the other.”
The traditions set forth above were widely spread in many
early Christian writings, showing how soon the corruption
spread which led on to the Dark Ages and to all the worst
errors of Romanism.
The Apocryphal books (written in Greek, not in Hebrew, first
and second centuries B.C.) contained the germ of this
teaching. That is why the Apocrypha is valued by
traditionalists, and is incorporated by the Church of Rome
as an integral part of her Bible.
The Apocrypha contains prayers for the dead; also ïthe song
of the three Children (known in the Prayer Book as the
Benedicite), in which ïthe spirits and souls of the
righteous are called on to bless the Lord.
The Te Deum, also, which does not date further back than the
fifth century, likewise speaks of the Apostles and Prophets
and Martyrs as praising God now.
From all this it seems to us perfectly clear that the Lord
was not delivering this as a parable, or as His own direct
teaching; but that He was taking the current, traditional
teachings of the Pharisees, which He was condemning; and
using them against themselves, thus convicting them out of
their own mouths. We are quite aware of the objection which
will occur to some of our readers. But it is an objection
based wholly on human reasoning, and on what appears to them
to be probable.
It will be asked, is it possible that our Lord would give
utterance in such words without giving some warning to us as
to the way to which He used them? Well, the answer to such
is that, warning has been given in the uniform and unanimous
teaching of Scripture. His own words: ïthey have Moses and
the Prophets, let them hear them, addressed to the Pharisees
through the Rich Man may be taken as addressed to us also.
We have (as they had) the evidence of the Old Testament (in
Moses and the Prophets), and we have also the evidence of
the New Testament, which accords with the Old. If we hear
them, it would be impossible for us to suppose, for a
moment, that Christ could be teaching here, that which is
the very opposite to that of the whole Word of God.
We have the Scriptures of truth; and they reveal to us, in
plain, direct, categorical, unmistakable words, that the
dead know not anything; and that when man’s breath goeth
forth, ïin that very day his thoughts perish.It is taken for
granted, therefore, that we shall believe what God says in
these and many other passages of His Word; and had we not
absorbed tradition from our earliest years we should have at
once seen that the popular interpretation of this passage is
quite contrary to the whole analogy of Scripture. We ought
to discern, at the very first glance at it, that it is
unique, and stands out so isolated, by itself, that we
should never for one moment dream of accepting as truth that
which, if we know anything of His Word, we should instantly
and instinctively detect as human tradition used for a
special purpose.
But, unfortunately, we have been brought up for the most
part on man’s books, instead of the Bible. People draw their
theology from hymns written by men who were saturated with
tradition; who, when they did write a good hymn generally
spoiled it in the last verse, by setting death as the
church’s hope, instead of Christ’s coming. Hence, hymns are
solemnly sung which contain such absurd, paradoxical
teaching as the singing of God’s praises while our tongues
are seeing corruption, and lie silent in the grave.
Persons saturated with such false traditions come to this
Scripture with minds filled with the inventions,
fabrications, and imaginations of man; and can, of course,
see nothing but their own traditions apparently sanctioned
by our Lord. They do not notice the fact that in the very
parable itself the Lord corrected the false doctrine by
introducing the truth of resurrection. But when we read the
passage in the light of the whole Word of God, and
especially in the light of the context, we see in it the
traditions of the Pharisees, which were highly esteemed
among men, but were abomination in the sight of God(v. 15).
PROTESTANTISM
All these traditions passed into Romanism. This is why we
read in the note of the English Romish Version (the Douay)
on Luke 16:
The bosom of Abraham is the resting place of all them that
died in
perfect state of grace before Christ’s time heaven, before,
being shut
from men. It is called in Zachary a lake without water, and
sometimes a
prison, but most commonly, of the Divines, ‘Limbus Patrum’,
for that it is
thought to have been the higher part, or brim, of hell,etc.
Our Protestant friends do not recognize this fact; and
hence, they have not wholly purged themselves from Romish
error. The Jews corrupted their religion by taking over the
Pagan teachings of Greek Mythology. Romanism adopted these
Jewish traditions of prayers for the dead and added others
of her own; and the Reformed Churches took over Romish
traditions connected with the so-called intermediate
State,which they should have purged out.
Instead of completing the Reformation in respect to such
heathen traditions, they are still clinging to them to-day;
and so tenaciously, that they are giving Romanists and
Spiritists all they want as the foundation for their false
teachings; while they reserve their wrath for those who,
like ourselves, prefer to believe God’s truth in opposition
to the first great lie of the Old Serpent.
But once we see the truth of God’s word, that death means
death; and cease to read the word as meaning life and away
goes the only ground for the worship of the Virgin Mary, the
invocation of saints, prayers to or for the dead; and all
the vapourings and falsehoods of lying spirits and teachings
of demons(I Timothy 4:1,2), who would deceive, by
personating deceased persons of whom God declares their
thoughts have perished.
FATHER ABRAHAM
But there is one further argument which we may draw from the
internal evidence of the passage itself, taken with other
statements in the Gospel narrative. The Jews laid great
stress on the fact that they were Abraham’s seed (John
8:33). They said, Abraham is our Father, whereupon the Lord
answers that, though they might be Abraham’s seed according
to the flesh, yet they were not Abraham’s true seed,
inasmuch as they did not the works of Abraham (vv. 39, 40).
Early in the Gospels this fallacy was dealt with judicially,
when John said by the Holy Spirit: Think not to say within
yourselves, We have Abraham to our father (Matthew 3:9).
This was when He saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees
come to His baptism; and called them ïa generation of
vipers, and not the sons of Abraham. They thought and
believed that inasmuch as they were the sons of Abraham by
natural generation, they were entitled to all the blessings
and privileges which were given to Abraham and his seed. So
here, one of them is represented as saying, Father Abraham.
Three times he calls him father, as though to lay claim to
these blessings and privileges (vv. 24, 27, 30). And the
point of the Lord’s teaching is this, that the first time
Abraham speaks, he is made to acknowledge the natural
relationship – Son, he says (v. 25). But he repudiates the
Pharisee’s title to any spiritual favor on that account. He
does not use the word Son again. Abraham is represented as
repudiating the Pharisee’s claim to anything beyond natural
relationship. He may be related to him according to the
flesh, but there is no closer relationship, though the
Pharisee continues to claim it. So the Lord does not make
Abraham repeat the word son again; though the rich man twice
more calls Abraham Father.
This understanding of the passage is, therefore, in
strictest harmony with the whole of the immediate context,
and with all other Scriptures which bear upon this subject.
It was quite unnecessary for the Lord to stop to explain for
us the sense in which He used this tradition, because it was
so contrary to all the other direct statements of Scripture,
that no one ought for a moment to be in doubt as to what is
the scope of the Lord’s teaching here. No previous knowledge
of Pharisaic traditions is necessary for the gathering of
this scope. But as this is the conflict between tradition
and Scripture, the evidence from the Talmud comes in, and
may well be used to strengthen our interpretation.
No! the Lord was at the crisis of His condemnation of the
Pharisees for their false traditions which made the Word of
God of none effect, and He makes use of those very
teachings, adapting them to the great end of condemning them
out of their own mouth.