Question: Did you write up a blog about Luke 16:19-31? You believe this is a parable from one of the Pharisees? Do you have evidence? Luke was a known scholar and historian, why didn't he say this is a parable like any other parable?
33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country
11 And he said, A certain man had two sons...
11 And he said, A certain man had two sons
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day
Ask yourself, who do you believe will experience this form of hades in the afterlife? You probably will say those who rejected the gospel of grace. You might say even those who never heard the gospel. Now compare your answers to the passage and notice how you will have to read such words into the story nowhere found. You will only try to make your beliefs as plausible as possible. Notice how you will not recommend reading Moses to the unbelievers.
The above was taken from:
What is the Talmud? Here is one definition:
Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and religious subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been [resolved] by him during those silent thirty years when he was pondering his future mission? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud. Here, say they, is the source from whence Jesus of Nazareth drew the teaching which enabled him to revolutionize the world; and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian, What is the Talmud? …
The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the TRADITIONS of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions. (Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson)
Was Caiaphas dead? No, he was still alive, but this so called “non-parable” by our traditionalists fails to see that the story has these men as ALREADY DEAD. It was a parable rebuking the religious leaders.
Answer: The above question was from an email I received earlier this week. Below was my email response to him but I made additions to that original email below:
How do I know it was a parable? Look at how Luke 16:19 begins:
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
This is how some of the parables of Jesus began. They began with, "There was a certain...." Look at Matthew 21:33:
33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country
Luke 7:41:
41 There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.
It can refer to a real event or a parable. Chapters 15 and into 16 is quite obvious that Jesus was talking in parables, and Jesus was known to speak almost exclusively in parables when addressing crowds and even Pharisees. Do you believe the prodigal son was a parable? It does not state it was a parable but we accept it as such. Verse 11 begins with:
11 And he said, A certain man had two sons...
Two literal sons? No, it was a rebuke to the Pharisees as was also the parable in Luke 16. Read the whole prodigal son story and you will not find it called a parable but it is universally accepted as a parable. You will find commentaries (not all) that consider Luke 16:19 a parable. I will share later why E. W. Bullinger said Luke 16:19-31 was not called a parable.
How most know it was indeed a parable was by how each parable consistently began and the succession of parables to follow. Look from Luke 15 on and you see for yourself:
Luke 15:3:
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying...
Luke 15:11:
11 And he said, A certain man had two sons
Luke 16:1:
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Luke 16:1 is accepted as a parable. I do not know anyone who disagrees with that. Notice that Luke 16:1 begins with, "There was a certain rich man" because verse 19 reads:
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day
Do you see how one parable after another began with “There was a certain…”? If you compare each parable is to see a specific truth being taught. Prodigal son was not literally "dead" as it stated but it was teaching a truth. To somehow think the rich man is no longer a parable when Jesus had been teaching nothing but parables in the previous context causes a problem. Are we saying that Jesus went from one parable after another and then decided to talk about one actual event?
One argument against Luke 16:19-31 being a parable was because actual names were used. Not sure how that is even an argument. How can a parable not use a real name? In the OT, we can see stories that involved real people. The Lord sent Nathan to David in 2nd Samuel where Nathan shared a "story" directed at David himself (2nd Samuel 12:1-7). It was a story but David was the man the story was about. The same thing is done in Ezekiel 23 where two names are mentioned in the story (verses 1-4). Jesus had used Himself in His own parables in the book of Matthew. In Luke 4:23 is where we find a "proverb" and Jesus was the physician referenced in the story:
23 And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician (applying to Jesus here), heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.
Here are Barnes Notes on the above verse:
The connection of this proverb, here, is this: "You profess to be the Messiah. You have performed miracles at Capernaum. You profess to be able to deliver us from our maladies, our sins, our afflictions. Show that you have the power, that you are worthy of our confidence, by working miracles here, as you profess to have done at Capernaum."
To say that it cannot be a parable in Luke 16 because Jesus mentions a name is not an argument from scripture or even stories in general that uses real names. The OT used real names in "stories" and so does the NT to teach something. People believing in a literal Satan and devil should know that they were used in parables with the mentioning of their names. The words "son of man" were used in a parable.
Here is what I do not get with their argument. If the mentioning of an actual name or referencing an actual person somehow means that it probably was not a parable then we have a problem. Luke 16:1 begins with:
And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
Literal or parable? The above verse is universally accepted as the 'parable of the unjust steward.' Why is that a parable but not verse 19 that begins with:
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day
Verse 19 begins identical to the story in verse 1, "There was a certain rich man." Religion says that the "certain rich man" in verse 1 was a parable but the "certain rich man" in verse 19 was actual??
The phrase "There was a certain..." is used many times throughout the Bible to refer to a real person and it clearly was used in parables too. Look at Luke 14:2:
2 And, behold, there was a certain man before him which had the dropsy.
The above clearly was no parable but Luke 16:1 was, so are we going to ignore this fact that the words "there was a certain..." can refer to a parable or an actual person? My point is that real people can be used in a fictional story. Verse 1, "There was a certain rich man" that religion calls a parable and verse 19, "There was a certain rich man" that religion calls literal.
The use of the words "there was a certain..." could be used to refer to an actual person/account or as a story/parable of an actual person. This is exactly what Nathan had done with David in 2nd Samuel. Nathan shared a story about David to David.
Religion plays games because they want their hell, so now hades is hell, along with Gehenna, along with the Lake of Fire, and along with Tartaroo. God supposedly created 4 hells even though hades was never seen in the OT as hellfire once in some afterlife but only in the tradition of the Pharisees as I will quote Josephus shortly proving that. It was a parable against the Pharisees and their traditions and religion is merely parroting a tradition to this day.
Religion plays games because they want their hell, so now hades is hell, along with Gehenna, along with the Lake of Fire, and along with Tartaroo. God supposedly created 4 hells even though hades was never seen in the OT as hellfire once in some afterlife but only in the tradition of the Pharisees as I will quote Josephus shortly proving that. It was a parable against the Pharisees and their traditions and religion is merely parroting a tradition to this day.
How did the rich man go to this hell? Well, if it were a literal account then we must read it literally. The context seems to indicate going to this “hades” is due to not giving to the poor, so I guess going to heaven is by giving to the needy. The one who had it good in this life will fry forever and the one who had dogs licking his sores goes to heaven. Do you agree with that? So the one gets it much worse in the afterlife than the one who had it bad in this life??
You will find that ONLY religion inserts words into the passage not there by telling you that a true Christian would share his/her wealth to the poor. They claim that this rich man gave evidence that he was not a Christian by not giving to the poor, as they claim he did not have good works. That is completely stupid. Why not say that rich people in general who do not give money to the poor go to hell?
You have to look for the lesson being taught and Luke 16:19-31 certainly was not, "You better believe Jesus or you will go to hell" nonsense taught ONLY by religion. Do not read Luke 16 as saying, “If you do not believe the gospel of grace of the death, burial, and resurrection then you go to hell” because that is only religion saying that. There was no death, burial, and resurrection gospel even implied. The rich man was not accused of refusing to believe the gospel of grace anywhere. This is religion adding words to the passage so that it fits comfortably with their hellish views of what happens if you do not accept "their version" of the so-called good news they spew.
Do you find religion giving the same advice to unbelievers that Abraham gave to the rich man in this parable? Do you find religion telling unbelievers, “You have Moses and the prophets... hear them”? I did not know that Moses preached the death, burial, and resurrection gospel. Religion leaves all this stuff out and will add words and thoughts (their version of the gospel) to a parable nowhere taught. Ask yourself, who do you believe will experience this form of hades in the afterlife? You probably will say those who rejected the gospel of grace. You might say even those who never heard the gospel. Now compare your answers to the passage and notice how you will have to read such words into the story nowhere found. You will only try to make your beliefs as plausible as possible. Notice how you will not recommend reading Moses to the unbelievers.
How I also know it was a parable was because Lazarus was carried off into Abraham's bosom. What in the world is Abraham's bosom? It was not an OT teaching. Religion says that it pictures rest. Really? Abraham's bosom? Religion says that this was a literal account because it mentioned Abraham, so it must be a literal account that we sit in his lap too.
We go to be with Abraham at death and rest upon his chest? Verse please?? Not all even agree it pictures rest and that is because we have NO VERSE anywhere teaching us that. You have to read the tradition of the Pharisees to get the meaning, as this parable was spoken to them.
The imagery of Abraham's bosom sounds just like a parable would. So after death we go to Abraham's bosom? I want you to think about that because I do not know of anyone making such claims today. The imagery of one drop of water cooling a person frying in supposed literal flames is utterly ridiculous. Forget the flames and just try adding one drop of water to your tongue when you are extremely thirsty and see if you experience any relief. Now imagine a man engulfed in flames and the fire department tosses one drop of water at him to cool him down. Make sense to you? I did not think so. We are reading a parable.
Abraham's bosom was discussed in early church history as a TRADITION of the Pharisees and nothing from Old Testament teaching. Jesus was using the Pharisees own tradition against them IN A PARABLE. It was not a literal place but something the Pharisees whipped up. Pharisees were known for teaching their “traditions” and "commandments of men." It amazes me how religious people are still accepting the tradition of the Pharisees as they talk just like the Pharisees did. They too promote the “commandments of men” as most legalistic churches do. Do we still believe Jewish fables? Is your current belief of Luke 16 based on one?
It is clear that such a belief (Abraham's Bosom) NEVER originated from scripture. Just ask anyone, "Where do we find Abraham's Bosom ever taught in the OT?” The answers they will give you is how traditions are made. You will see them give you answers that sound acceptable but will come from no verses of scripture at all. Josephus confirms the tradition (belief of two compartments in hades, one punishing and the other rewarding) of the Pharisees as Josephus was a Pharisee who lived during the time Israel was destroyed in 70ad. Here is what we have concerning the Pharisees:
They (Pharisees) held strenuously to a belief in the existence of good and evil angels, and to the expectation of a Messiah; and they cherished the hope that the dead, after a preliminary experience either of reward or of penalty in Hades, would be recalled to life by him, and be requited each according to his individual deeds(Strong’s Concordance).
Where did such a belief as that concerning hades come from as presented in Luke 16? Not the OT, but the tradition of the Pharisees. Luke 16 is how religion still teaches the erroneous compartmental theory of hades never taught before except in the tradition of the Pharisees. Notice the reward or punishing in hades. It was not a belief that one goes to the good side of hades for believing the gospel as we are dealing with a reward. The rich man was punished and the poor man rewarded. Even the poor man was not said to be a believer of the gospel. He merely was comforted for his having bad things in life. It was a parable.
Traditions of the Pharisees still live on today. The tradition of the Pharisees evolved today into how unbelievers go from hades to another form of some hell called the Lake of Fire. However, it says that death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. It was the DEAD standing (figuratively) before God. No dead person was talking, reasoning, fearing, questioning, asking for a drop of water, or doing a single thing when cast into this lake of fire that was not a literal fire. The lake of fire was not the sun, under the earth, or in a volcano as some religious people claim. Revelation 20 does not say, “Mt. Vesuvius is the lake of fire.” It does not say, “The Sun is the lake of fire.” It does not say, “The core of the earth is the lake of fire.” It does say, “This IS the second death” as it clearly was not a literal fire. It was figurative as it represented a death to the first death. It was the death of death. It ended the old and brought in the new as chapter 21 begins sharing.
Here is some more information on Abraham’s bosom. Be sure to ask those who teach the tradition of the Pharisees where the teaching of “Abraham’s Bosom” originated. Then be sure to tell them where Abraham’s bosom can be found as you direct them to the Talmud. Read the following:
In 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. "Paradise", "The carrying away by angels", "Abraham's bosom", etc., were the popular expressions constantly used. Christ was not the first who used these phrases, but He used the language of the Pharisees, turning it against them.
Take a few examples from the Talmud:
(1) 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: "This day he sits in Abraham's bosom", i.e. the day he died.
Take a few examples from the Talmud:
(1) 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: "This 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.
Here we have again the Pharisees' tradition as used against them by our Lord.
The above was taken from:
http://levendwater.org/books/the_rich_man_and_lazarus/page0017.htm
Bullinger made this comment about Luke 16 and why he believes it was not called a parable:
It is not called a parable because it cites a notable example of the Pharisee's tradition which had been brought from Babylon
What is the Talmud? Here is one definition:
Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and religious subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been [resolved] by him during those silent thirty years when he was pondering his future mission? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud. Here, say they, is the source from whence Jesus of Nazareth drew the teaching which enabled him to revolutionize the world; and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian, What is the Talmud? …
The Talmud, then, is the written form of that which, in the time of Jesus, was called the TRADITIONS of the Elders, and to which he makes frequent allusions. (Rabbi Michael L. Rodkinson)
I hope that makes it abundantly clear that we are dealing with a parable and that parable in Luke 16 was against Pharisees and their tradition nonsense. They were the ones who believed their “soul” would go to be with Abraham and those (the poor) they despised would be turned away but Jesus twisted their story around. To the Pharisees, the poor were cursed by God. However, it was the poor that actually would listen to God and not the rich.
Again, where did such a belief as that concerning hades come from as presented in Luke 16? Not the OT, but the tradition of the Pharisees.
Yes, I did blog about Luke 16:19-31. I copied and pasted my brief comments on Luke 16 below for you to read below. I do not give the spiritual meaning but I chose to argue some interesting points made within the fictional story:
1st, Does Luke 16 teach a literal hell after death? Only if you refuse to investigate our religious traditional nonsense we grew up hearing. The writings of Josephus proves that Luke 16 was the belief of many Pharisees, as it NEVER came from scripture, and that was why the Pharisees did not challenge this hades after-life belief that you can find NOWHERE in the bible. Jesus was using the Pharisees belief of "hades" (not Gehenna) against them.
Luke 16 was a parable, but religion attempts to use two silly arguments to prove that it was not a parable but instead some literal account. Religion will quote the beginning of verse 19, “There was a certain rich man” as proof of a real person, but that is common with other parables of Jesus to begin that way (see Matthew 21:33; Luke 7:41; Luke 16:1). It can mean an actual person, but it was not uncommon to be used in parables too. Jesus could use an actual person as an example in a parable, as we do it all the time. The question is whether Luke 16 was an actual event. The overwhelming evidence is that Jesus shared enough information for us to know that this was simply a parable being used against the religious leaders. Show me "Abraham's Bosom" in the afterlife one time in the entire OT??? It was the tradition of the Pharisees and Jesus was using their own man-made beliefs against them.
Religion also says that it cannot be a parable because Jesus quotes Lazarus and Abraham who are actual people. First of all, who here is looking to go to Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22)?? Has anyone told you that when you die is to go and be with Abraham? No, they twist it to mean a place of rest and comfort only. The Pharisees believed they would be with him and probably explains why they cry out to him for mercy in the passage calling him their father. Again, this was a belief of the Pharisees, and not a teaching of scripture. Nobody is going to Abraham’s bosom, and nobody in the OT was said to go there at death. Jesus does quote Lazarus, but He quotes him as a rebuke to the religious leaders standing there, as I will explain shortly.
The parable begins with a certain man dressed in fine purple linen who also had 5 brothers. Who do you suppose that was? It was the high priest Caiaphas who was alive and well when Jesus shared this parable but Jesus preached it in the past tense (there "was" a certain man) as it was a parable.
Again, he wore "fine purple linen." The Old Testament shares that the high priest wore fine purple linen, as even the Wikipedia recognizes that:Priestly sash (Hebrew avnet) (sash): that of the High Priest was of fine linen with "embroidered work" in blue and purple and scarlet (Exodus 28:39, 39:29); those worn by the priests were of white, twined linen.
Also, it says that this man in fine purple linen had 5 brothers (Luke 16:28). Caiaphas was known to have 5 brothers, as Josephus told us who they all were. It too is listed in Wikipedia as you can look that up.
Was Caiaphas dead? No, he was still alive, but this so called “non-parable” by our traditionalists fails to see that the story has these men as ALREADY DEAD. It was a parable rebuking the religious leaders.
Notice that Jesus mentions Lazarus, and then says in verse 30 because the rich man asked Lazarus to be sent to warn his brothers:
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
What was behind that verse? Think about it for a moment. Who was a man Jesus raised from the dead in front of the religious leaders? It was Lazarus, but traditionalists to get around that will tell you that Lazarus was a common name, so it could have been anyone. Yeah, what a coincidence that Jesus used the very name in this parable that was raised from the dead before the religious leaders eyes He was addressing. Did Caiaphas and others later believe as a result of Lazarus being raised from the dead? NO! It was because Lazarus being raised that Caiaphas and the other religious leaders sought to put Jesus and Lazarus to death. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees that if one were raised from the dead (as Lazarus was), they still would not believe and they did not.
One last comment concerning Luke 16. Do you really think that if one were frying in hell forever would ask for one drop of water? Burn your hand in a flame and see how much relief you would feel from a single drop of water. Allow yourself to be extremely thirsty and place one drop of water upon your tongue and let me know how much relief that provided. Religion throws out common sense for nonsense and expects you to just believe it.
This was clearly a parable, as Jesus was hammering the religious leaders and their unbelief by using their own fable against them. Now religion has taken Luke 16 and twisted it into some horrific true story happening to every unbeliever today, as they supposedly are in utter agony craving a single drop of water. Sick and twisted religion!