What does the text of Luke 16:19-31 actually teach? Many have set forth fanciful theories that no one could honestly derive from the text. Such strained interpretations arise from the theology of certain religious groups or individuals that feel a need to defend a doctrine, such as “soul-sleeping” (referred to as psychopannychy). As we look at the text, let us put aside the various explanations available and just consider the text.
The rich man is described as simply a rich man. He was clothed in purple and fine linen—items that would be available to the rich. Lydia, later on, would be “a seller of purple; there was a demand for the color among the well-to-do.” He fared sumptuously every day. This is the only time the adverb appears, and it probably carries with it the idea of eating a good amount of food. What Luke has communicated is that the man under discussion is rich: he dresses well and he eats well.
A man called Lazarus is contrasted with him. He is not rich; in fact, he is a beggar. He is not a healthy person; he is full of sores. The word translated “sores” in verse 21 [1668] is used only two other times in the New Testament—Revelation 16:2 and 11. In that passage God had brought “a foul and loathsome sore” upon those “who had the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.” Their response was to blaspheme “the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores.” Needless to say, they did not repent of their sins.
The humble Lazarus, however, remained faithful to God. Someone laid him at the rich man’s gate (someone who did not want the responsibility of taking care of him). Apparently, the rich man did not want to burden himself with such a responsibility, either. He paid no special attention to Lazarus, who received only crumbs from the table (if that). The dogs came and licked his sores.
If this were a parable, Jesus now might have explained what each man represented. The Lord, however, does not say that the rich man indicated the ruling class, the Jews, or anyone else. Neither did Lazarus refer to a class of people such as the common person, the Gentiles, or anyone else. They are just what they seem, and no hidden meaning presents itself.
Actually, we see others who are like this rich man in the New Testament. One of these Jesus had already described in Luke 12:16-20. This is called a parable, although the account is told in a straight-forward manner. Even here the rich man does not signify anyone else, such as the Pharisees or the Gentiles. He is an illustration of the covetous man. Jesus was making the point that a man’s “life does not consist in the abundance of the things he possesses” (v. 15). The covetous person does not see this truth. He spends his life amassing things, all of which he must leave behind when he dies. When his life ended, God did not require his things but his soul. The conclusion the Lord draws after speaking these words is: “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God” (v. 21). The reason this account of a sad, wasted life may be called a parable is that it was not a true story but served only to illustrate the point.
On the other hand, what occurs with the rich man and Lazarus is true. Another rich man (also a true, literal account) came to Jesus, asking Him what he lacked to be made perfect. Perceiving his love of money, Jesus told him to sell all he had, distribute it to the poor, and to follow Him. The man went away sorrowfully because he was very rich. Jesus then lamented how hard it would be for the rich to enter into the kingdom of heaven (Luke 16:18-25). Paul told Timothy to command the rich “not to be haughty, nor to trust in uncertain riches,” but rather “in the living God” (1 Tim. 6:17). James issued a few choice words toward the rich, also (5:1-6).
One other example occurs in the New Testament—with Christians! Blinded by their material comforts, the Laodiceans were saying, “I am rich” (with respect to this world’s goods; they did not realize that they were poor (spiritually) (Rev. 3:17). The point of all these passages is that wealth can blind us if we are not careful. Riches choke the Word and make us unfruitful.
The purpose for looking at all of these passages is to observe that nothing is taught in Luke 16:19-21 that is remotely unusual. The rich man is typical of many others about whom we read in the New Testament. He does not represent a class of people; nothing mysterious surrounds this text. It may safely be taken at face value.
Phase Two
When the reader arrives at verse 22, he begins to read about the afterlife. Parables always deal with what is familiar in people’s experience and then make an important application from it. But neither the people of Jesus’ day nor we have observed the afterlife firsthand. We do not see with fleshly eyes beyond the physical world we live in. What Jesus speaks of in verses 22-31 is beyond anything with which we are familiar. We do know some details concerning these matters, but they come by revelation—not observation.
When Lazarus died, he was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom (22). We are not given the details of what happened to his body; the implication of the word also is that it was buried. Is there another passage that mentions the angels coming for the spirit of the righteous? Certainly, this is the only reference to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man was in torments in Hades, and we have heard of that name for the realm of the dead (their souls or spirits, not their bodies).
Solomon wrote that, at death, the Spirit goes back to God who gave it (Ecc. 12:7), but he did not include the fact that God assigns the spirit a place in the Hadean realm. Other passages confirm this idea. Perhaps the most important of these is found in Acts 2. David understood that a human being consists of the flesh and the spirit. He spoke concerning himself that his own flesh would rest in hope (in other words, that his body would be resurrected) and that God would not leave his soul in Hades. David wrote these words through inspiration, and Peter quoted them on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:26-27.
David also proclaimed, through inspiration, that Jesus’ body would not see corruption (Acts 2:28) and that His soul would not be left in Hades (Acts 2:31). People seem to have commonly understood the existence of the Hadean realm. Later, John records that Death and Hades deliver up the dead in them into the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20:13-14). Only the ungodly will be left in the Hadean realm because Jesus is bringing with Him those who have already fallen asleep in Him (1 Thess. 4:14). Jesus also referred to Abraham’s bosom as Paradise (Luke 23:43).
What did Jesus promise the thief? “Today, you will start snoozin’ with Me, and you won’t wake up until the Day of Judgment.” Is that Paradise—a long nap? No, Jesus meant that they would be together in the Hadean realm, although Jesus would be departing from there before long, as prophesied.
Luke 16:22-23 has already demonstrated that Hades possesses two sides. The righteous are refreshed, and the wicked are in torments. Abraham teaches that there is a great gulf fixed between the two compartments and that people cannot pass between the two (26). Furthermore, it is clear that the portion of torment is not unlike Gehenna in that they both possess fire (v. 25). So, the mistreated, poor, and ill Lazarus now received comfort; and the rich man now realized the true extent of his poverty.
None of these descriptions are symbolic or representative of something else. They coincide with details presented in other texts. What Jesus is doing is providing a glimpse into what will be that we cannot possibly see until we die and are sent to one of these two places. Many are complacent, such as the rich man or the Laodiceans, thinking they will just naturally be rewarded hereafter. This warning Jesus gives to all who abide in this category.
His lesson is not that the rich are punished while the poor and sick are rewarded. It is that prosperity does not indicate salvation, and poverty does not imply that one is lost. Those who are wealthy, powerful, royal, among the elite, or highly educated do not automatically get invitations into heaven. Many of those are proud, and Jesus is looking for the humble (Matt. 5:1). Paul wrote that “not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1 Cor. 1:26). Likewise, just because someone is covered with sores is no guarantee. Those in Revelation blasphemed their condition. Lazarus, by implication, was still faithful and dependent on God. “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up” (James 4:10).
Another lesson taught by Jesus is that, after this life is over, it is too late to change one’s position—or anyone else’s. The rich man could not leave where he was; no one could come and comfort him. He wanted his brothers, who were living by the same philosophy he had observed, to be warned. He thought if Lazarus appeared to them, they would listen, but Abraham affirmed that, if they would not heed the Word of God, they would not be persuaded even though one arose from the dead (Luke 16:27-31).
How true! Jesus did arise from the dead—yet many still do not believe! Jesus provided this peek into the future so that we could guard against complacency. It is not a parable; nothing stands for anything else. It is just what it appears to be—a Divine warning to be careful that we live right, walking humbly before God and loving our fellow man. May we profit from this look into our future.
INVOLVEMENT IN WORSHIP
Dub McClish (Denton, Texas)
In recent years there has been considerable discussion among brethren about getting more people “involved” in worship. No one will question that every Christian must involve himself in worship. I do question, however, what some mean by “involvement.” Some equate involvement with having a leading part of some kind as if the leaders were the only participants. Others have erroneously argued that true involvement is impossible except in a small group situation. Such concepts have led to various attempts to artificially create spirituality and worship “involvement” through responsive readings, serving the Lord’s supper in Bible classes, replacing Gospel sermons with panel discussions, and such like. Some are using the excuse of “involvement” (among others) to advocate giving leading roles to women in our mixed worship assemblies.
My understanding of worship involvement is a bit simpler, and, I think, much more Scriptural and practical. If one sincerely wants to “get involved” in worship, I suggest the following:
• When a brother leads a prayer, we should do our best to shut everything else out. Closing our eyes will help, concentrating with all of our power on the words of the leader (1 Cor. 14:16). This involvement makes it our prayer, also.
• During the singing, we should pay attention to the leader and follow his direction. Even if he is leading the song at the wrong tempo, in our opinion, we should not try to “take over” the song. Think about the words of the song. Sing with understanding, enthusiasm, and joy (1 Cor. 14:15). Of course, we cannot be involved in singing if we do not sing.
• Involvement in the contribution should begin before we get to the assembly. We should purpose and determine in advance what our financial offering will be (2 Cor. 9: 7), on the basis of our level of prosperity (1 Cor. 16:2). We do not fully involve ourselves in giving unless we give regularly (every Lord’s day), bountifully, cheerfully, and gratefully.
• We have a straightforward command of Scripture to be involved in the Lord’s supper: “This do in remembrance of me” (1 Cor. 11:24–25). Moreover, if we fail, we bring judgment upon ourselves (v. 29). Some people close their eyes in quiet meditation as they reflect on the cross. I have for years found it helpful to read and meditate upon one of the Scriptural records of the Lord’s suffering and death or upon some other appropriate passage (e.g., Isa. 53; 1 Cor. 11:23–34; et al.).
• As the preacher delivers the sermon, many find it helpful to turn to the Scriptures and read them as he cites or quotes them. Those who take notes generally retain far more than those who do not. These suggestions are surely some of the most basic ways to be “involved” in worship. Participation is the key to involvement.
—The Northpoint Lighthouse (Sept. 12, 2010)
MODESTY
Dub McClish
Modest can apply to one’s salary, house, or any number of things in the sense of that which is moderate, appropriate, humble, or unostentatious. However, there is another important implication of the word having to do with one’s moral convictions and the respect one has for his or her own body. In this sense, Paul commanded women to “adorn themselves in modest apparel” (1 Tim. 2:9). The Arndt-Gingrich lexicon says that modest here means “honorable,” “respectable.” We understand Paul to be talking about wearing clothing that indicates the moral chastity, purity, and sense of decency that Christians must have.
While both men and women ought to dress modestly, it is noteworthy that Paul addressed this instruction peculiarly to women. He did not do so accidentally. Biologically and psychologically, men and women differ greatly. While admitting to some exceptions, men are more easily aroused and aggressive sexually than women. The Lord understood this and thus especially warned men against looking at and lusting after a wom-an (Mat. 5:28). Dressing (or undressing) in such a manner as to invite sexual stimulation is a problem pertaining primarily to women and the way they dress. Only a lack of modesty will cause a physically mature female to be more undressed than dressed in public places. Women (young or old) who wear scanty swimming attire, shorts and halter tops, mid-thigh length skirts, low cut and see-through blouses, skin-tight pants, and such like in public places are advertising their immodesty.
It is baffling and heartbreaking to see the shameless display of skin exhibited at public functions (the super market, public beaches/pools, school activities, etc.) by so many women. It is especially perplexing and disheartening to see Christian women and girls so behave. It is even sadder to see such things as “spaghetti strap” sun dresses, see through blouses, and very short skirts worn to worship assemblies.
I fail to comprehend how otherwise right-thinking girls and women can think that it is in keeping with Christian purity to so expose their bodies. Neither can I understand how Christian fathers and/or husbands can permit or encourage it. A wife’s physical charms must be reserved for her husband alone. Something is wrong with the husband who wants his wife to share even visually her charms with any other man. Further, how can a Christian father or mother allow a teen-aged daughter to dress in such a way as to invite the wrong kind of attention? Christian parents could stop such immodesty at once if they would.
Immodesty is expected in people of the world, but for the sake of Christ, ought not His people to be modest and decent in the way that they dress (Rom. 12:1–2)?
Via www.scripturecache.com