January 28, 2012

Day 23 - Luke 16:16-31

As some of you might have noticed, I missed yesterday's post.  However, I will be doing a post today and tomorrow to catch up.  I didn't realize until today how much I needed some extra rest (Jenny, too).  Yesterday I called in sick to work because I felt like crap.  I slept all the way until 11am.  Today Jenny and I both slept in until noon!  The first thing we did was watch a Mavs game that we missed last night. During the game we had an impromptu lunch of a bag of chex mix.  The game ended at 1:45pm and before we knew it we had passed out into another nap.  We just woke back up about 30 minutes ago (it is now 4:30pm!!!). I guess we both were in need of the rest.

I've been thinking a lot about the latter half of Luke 16, to change the subject. I've been itching to get back to it because it raises a bunch of great questions and good debate topics. So without further ado, let's do it!


Read Luke 16:16-31 (find it here)


We're actually picking up on the end of the parable of the shrewd manager here in verse 16.  Jesus tells the Pharisees that since the Kingdom of God is not all about the Law, everyone wants to "get in."  I don't want you to confuse this Law with the rules that were set up for the Sabbath.  We've already concluded that those aren't actually found within the Bible.

But if you read through the first five books of the law, especially the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th books (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) you'll read many detailed laws that God gave the Israelites through Moses.  But in Luke 16, God is giving grace and a different way through Jesus.  The Law isn't to be ignored but it is no longer the requirement to please God.  Since God's words are eternal, the Law is not going to be overturned. When we receive Christ, it is his life (words, actions, etc) that we follow that gives us a better example to pattern our lives after.

For example, God was, is and never will be pro-divorce.  It was a common practice in the Old Testament to treat a woman who is divorced from her husband as an adulterer unless he cheated on her (see Matthew 5:31-32 or 19:9). And, with today's culture in mind, I can easily venture to say that it would only be advisable for women their husbands to divorce in case of infidelity.  In Malachi 2:16 God flat out says, "I hate divorce!"

Jesus gives a much stronger picture of the affects of selfishness or hoarding of wealth.  See the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, for example.

The rich man knows that Lazarus is begging on his doorsteps for table scraps day after day.  Lazarus' quality of life is no better than that of a dog.  Lazarus is also in need of medical attention, as well (he has sores).

Lazarus dies and is ushered into heaven with Abraham (the ultimate father of the faith). When the rich man died "his soul went to the place of the dead" (v. 23) and there he is suffering. The rich man is able, somehow, to see Lazarus and Abraham in the distance.

Before I go any further I want to confess my inability to completely understand what this means.  I say that for one big reason.  The word that Luke uses for "place of the dead" is NOT hell. It is the word Hades. Hades, in the New Testament, is defined as a temporary holding place for the dead or as Latin translators later would define it as purgatory. I know this has the potential to open up a can of worms.  Either this rich man is being held here until the final judgment (generally the orthodox Christian view) or he is waiting for a chance at redemption (generally a Roman Catholic view). Hades, in Revelation 13-14, will be thrown into the "lake of fire" but not before all the dead are removed and judged.  My question is why do the people who are sent to Hades even need to be judged? They seem to have been judged already if they are in Hades, no?  Do they have a second chance or do they just a date with their Maker?

Interesting, eh?

Either way, the rich man wants relief then he wants Lazarus to go warn his brothers.  Abraham tells him that both are impossible.

And HERE is how ineffective the Law has become in those days. Abraham tells the rich man that his brothers have the Law and the warnings from Moses and the prophets. (v. 29)  The rich man knows that the Law is useless in convincing his brothers. The rich man says, "If Lazarus were resurrected and went to my brothers, then they would believe, repent and turn to God." (v. 30)

After listening to Jesus, we should know that performing a miracle to a negative skeptic never works.  They will either explain it away or call it demonic, right?  So Abraham knows this, too and says that "they won't listen even if someone rises from the dead." (v. 31)


With what we know about Jesus' future resurrection, it is clear to see that Abraham knows that all of humanity will not come to God because a man (who claims to the be the Son of God) rises from the dead, much less if a beggar were to resurrect.  Miracles are only useful and produce a change in those that are seeking not actively trying to disprove God!

Even though we delved into these great topics, Jesus' ultimate point is to note how powerful riches and selfishness are in leading people away from God.



Questions

1.)  You'll notice that Jesus allows divorce only in the case of unfaithfulness. Some may be thinking, "what about in the case of abuse?" That is a fair question. In ancient times, women didn't have the choice of whether to get married or divorced, it was decided for them. Today, that is not true in America.  So how can both men and women protect themselves from the possibility of divorce?  What practices, expectations, boundaries, etc should people utilize before they get married?

2.)  What is your opinion about where the rich man is? Do you believe he is in a place that is forever locked away (a precursor to hell) from the possibility of redemption or does he have a shot if Hades will someday be emptied of all its dead?

3.) Do you believe that people of today are similar to those in Jesus' day in the way that miracles really don't do much for those who are really anti-God? Why or why not?

1 comment: