Beware of covetousness - Christ says to all people today - for a person’s life does not depend on the abundance of his possessions. Watch yourself so that the principles of this world do not penetrate your heart, so that they do not dominate it. A person's happiness does not depend on wealth.
The life of the soul, without a doubt, is not connected with wealth, because its needs cannot be satisfied by anything material. And the life of the body does not consist in having material abundance. You can live cheerfully and easily, being content with little. As Scripture says, better is a dish of herbs and holy love than a sumptuous feast of hatred. (Proverbs 15, 17).
And on the other hand, as they say, everything is laid before the rich man - but God did not give him health, and he cannot touch anything. You can have all the riches of the earth and be the most unhappy person in the world. To warn us against the danger of covetousness, from which the world is perishing, the Lord tells a parable about the life and death of one rich man. And leaves it to us to judge for ourselves whether this person was happy.
His wealth lay in the abundance of the fruits of the earth. He had a lot of land, and his land was fertile, and he acquired more and more until he had a completely unheard-of harvest. He was even confused by such success, and his life instantly lost peace, both day and night. "What should I do, he reasoned with himself, and I have nowhere to gather my fruits".
The Lord in heaven sees and knows all our intentions and thoughts of the heart, and we are responsible for them before the Lord. From the fact What we sometimes think deeply within ourselves, as if making a final choice, our final fate, earthly and eternal, can be decided. This is, in all likelihood, what happened to this rich man: according to his internal state, the Lord determined his death sentence.
This man, having received a rich harvest, naturally intends to expand his granaries. And maybe many will ask: what, exactly, is the matter? After all, a person actually received a good harvest, and he must take care of it so that nothing is wasted.
And we see what plans are born in this person. "That's what I'll do, he says, I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and I will gather there all my grain and all my goods, and I will live in contentment and peace.”. He openly boasts, he is full of complacency, he decisively and irrevocably determines: this is what I will do. But he won’t think about what God wants from him at such an important moment in his life.
His behavior is an open defiance of everything that the word of God teaches. He follows a path directly opposite to what we know from the teachings of Christ. His decision, therefore, is quite insane. It was madness on his part, say the holy fathers, to call the fruits of the earth their fruits, his good. Everything we have is given to us on loan. But all this belongs to the Lord God, and we are only guardians of the Lord’s good.
He behaves like a thief who has stolen from God. And he wants to hide the stolen goods in a safe place. It was madness on his part to believe that there would be enough good for many years, while in one hour everything could be burned to the ground. Maybe from a lightning strike from a sudden, unexpected thunderstorm. Or maybe from aphids, which will quietly eat everything away.
I knew one grandmother who, during the war, stored grain in a barn behind ten locks “for a rainy day” when her grandchildren were malnourished. And then she finally opened it and saw that instead of grain there was only dust left, and worms were swarming in it.
I also remember the story of one pious man. He spoke with tears of amazement and gratitude about how literally a few days before the revolution his father’s large mill burned down. At first everyone was horrified, but then they saw that this saved him and his entire family from death, when everyone with wealth in this village was shot or sent to die in a concentration camp.
In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the instruction of the holy fathers that when, with the unexpected loss of earthly riches, we thank God, He credits us with this gratitude for the voluntary distribution of our wealth as alms.
The parable of the crazy rich man reminds us on what shaky foundations this crazy world in which we live stands, where everything is determined by earthly success, and all the wisdom of life lies in how to achieve this success. We understand that this parable is about the Bolsheviks, about the new Russians, about today's America, about the Americanization and mammonization of the entire world today.
A crazy rich man is a modern person who is successful in any field. He knows what latest technology to use, how to process it, how to fertilize the soil, if we are talking about this particular matter, what seeds to choose for a more favorable harvest. And so in all areas of life, in any sphere. This is the most important thing for a person. A person has learned this, he achieves success. And it seems that the whole society can learn from this.
There seems to be no limit to the wealth of this man and this society. It stands like a merciless idol, blinding the mind and imagination with new grandiose projects for restructuring the world. America now seems to be achieving success to the highest degree. From time to time, the Lord puts people and nations before the collapse of everything, until He crushes everything, until He stops us completely and reminds us of the main thing - our immortal soul.
The mad rich man's greatest madness was to say to his soul: “Soul, rest, eat, drink, be merry”. It’s as if a person lives to eat! If he had said: “My body, rest, eat, drink, be merry, you have enough goods for many years,” this would have some more meaning. But what does any amount of grain or gold do to the soul? How can a soul eat such food? If this man had the soul of a pig, it might be content to eat and drink. Because the human soul can only feed on truth and goodness, the works of mercy that it does, purity, prayer, the word of God, love, God.
When the Lord says: “Take, eat, this is My Body” and when He says: "Drink everything from her", then the soul together with the body can eat, and drink, and rejoice in the Lord for many years and forever. A hopes only for earthly happiness are insane. The day comes when God calls the very bearer of these hopes by this very name: “You fool, this night your soul will be taken from you, but who will get what you have collected?”
Archpriest Alexander Shargunov
Above we saw how many texts there are in the Old Testament that clearly call hell (the underworld) a grave and death a sleep. Now we'll look at everything texts of the New Testament (there are only a few), on which many churches build their doctrine of the immortality of the soul, torment in hell and bliss in paradise, but which, upon careful examination, speak of something completely different.
We begin with the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Many Christians are sure that after his death Lazarus went to heaven, and the rich man went to hell. However, this theological concept fully contradicts the text of the Bible. Higher in the chapter we saw that, according to the Old Testament Scripture, all people, including even the heroes of the faith, after death went to hell and slept “there”. As for the concept of “heavenly” paradise, it is absent as such in the Old Testament. In this regard, many representatives of popular faiths believe that the heavenly paradise in the Old Testament was closed until Jesus opened the gates to it with His sacrificial death and resurrection. According to this theological theory, hell in the Old Testament had two sections - the “soft” one, where Lazarus ended up, and the “harsh” one, where the rich man was tormented. Jesus supposedly after his death descended into hell, woke up those who were sleeping there and then preached to everyone. Then He took the righteous to the heavenly paradise that opened thanks to His death, and the sinners were left to burn in the “harsh” section of hell. Through this theological concept, truth-seeking believers attempt to somehow connect the doctrines of their church with the Bible. However, such a theory also leaves many questions to which it is impossible to find reasoned answers that are consistent with all other texts of Holy Scripture.
As we begin to think about the story of the rich man and Lazarus, let's remember that all denominations call this story of Jesus a parable. And that's true. Christ here used a literary device using allegory (figures of speech, allegory, metaphor), called a parable. Unfortunately, not all theologians treat this story as a parable, but interpret part of its text literally. They say: “Look, Jesus describes to us the torment of a rich man in hell, which means that people suffer in hell. We will believe in Christ." At first glance, everything seems logical. Meanwhile, such a superficial approach to the analysis of the biblical text cannot be correct. After all, if the story about the rich man and Lazarus is reality, then everything what is described in it must be reality. And if this is a parable, then in it God desires in the form non-existent images to convey some important message to listeners. However, the reality in Jesus' story No at all. I hope you are convinced of this now.
In this book, I try to present more important verses of Holy Scripture, recognizing that not every person reading my humble research work may have a Bible at hand. Despite the fact that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not small in volume, I decided to present it in full, since the dogma of many confessions about life after death is primarily based on these texts:
“A certain man was rich, dressed in purple and fine linen, and feasted brilliantly every day. There was also a certain beggar named Lazarus, who lay at his gate covered with scabs and wanted to feed on the crumbs falling from the rich man’s table, and the dogs came and licked his scabs. The beggar died and was carried by the Angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And in hell, being in torment, he raised his eyes, saw Abraham in the distance and Lazarus in his bosom and, crying out, said: Father Abraham! have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said: child! remember that you have already received your good in your life, and Lazarus received your evil; now he is comforted here, and you suffer; and on top of all this, a great gulf has been established between us and you, so that those who want to cross from here to you cannot, nor can they cross from there to us. Then he said: So I ask you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers; let him testify to them, so that they too do not come to this place of torment. Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them listen to them. He said: no, Father Abraham, but if someone from the dead comes to them, they will repent. Then Abraham said to him: If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, then even if someone were raised from the dead, they would not believe it.”(Luke 16:19-31).
Below we list questions for which there are no answers consistent with the theory of post-mortem pain. Using this parable as an example, I also want to demonstrate the dangers of a superficial analysis of the texts of the Bible.
1. Where is it located? Abraham's bosom- in heaven or underground in hell? Let us remember that, according to the beliefs of representatives of many faiths, Jesus had not yet opened the gates to heavenly paradise before His death and resurrection. That is All dead people, according to the Old Testament teaching, with which many Christian theologians agree, were in hell (see chapter “Hell, the underworld. The concept of death"). This means that Abraham’s womb must be underground in hell until the death of Christ. That is why heaven and paradise are not mentioned in the text of the parable. It turns out that Abraham's womb is one of the sections of hell, a little higher than where the rich man was, since he looked up up and communicated freely with Lazarus. However, it is difficult to imagine two adjacent spaces underground, where in one the dead are tormented, and in the second - higher, but not far away, so that one can communicate, are consoled the righteous, seeing suffering first. Moreover, some are hot from the heat, while others have cool rivers flowing underground...
Even if we imagine that Lazarus was in heavenly paradise (which, let us recall, according to the representatives of popular faiths themselves, had not yet been opened before the death and resurrection of Jesus), and the rich man was in hell, it turns out that these two containers for billions of human souls are completely nearby, since the heroes of the parable saw each other and communicated freely with each other.
In any case, here we have an unrealistic picture... Which means this is an allegory - a parable.
2. Why beggar was carried by the Angels to Abraham's bosom, A the rich man is buried V hell? Let us remember again that according to the Old Testament teaching, absolutely All the dead, even the heroes of the faith (Jacob, Job, Hezekiah...), ended up in hell - the grave, and the heavenly paradise could not yet be opened (see above). So, Angels and the beggar carried to hell, that is, his “spirit” and body they buried him in an earthen grave. And the rich man's corpse is also someone buried to the grave. It is difficult to imagine the picture of Angels burying Lazarus. Here again we see imagery. This means that this is not reality, but an allegory - a parable.
3. We see that people in hell are talking. But according to many other biblical texts, the dead sleeping. David, Job, Ecclesiastes were sure that after death they would rest in unconscious sleep, won't be able to think and even admire God and thank Him. This is clearly seen from the quotations of Holy Scripture given in the chapter “Hell, the underworld. The concept of death". The Bible does not describe communication between the dead and the living with the dead at all, not counting the spiritualistic seance between King Saul and the image of the prophet Samuel through a sorceress (see 1 Sam. 28:4-28) and the appearance of Moses to Jesus (see Matt. 17:3) , which we will think about a little later. It turns out that some of those who died in the “former” hell were sleeping, while others were communicating? Then why does Scripture not contain the criteria by which God determined who should rest after death and who should be awake, because this was of utmost importance for all people living then? You must agree that it is at least strange that in such a huge volume of Holy Scripture there are neither conditions for achieving posthumous rest or wakefulness, nor examples of communication with the dead, but there are many texts talking about the unconscious sleep of the dead. There is an obvious discrepancy between this part of the story about the rich man and Lazarus and the teaching of Scripture. This means that we have before us an allegory – a parable.
Let us recall that the New Testament also calls death sleep:
“Therefore it is said: “Arise, sleeping, And rise from the dead and Christ will illuminate you"(Eph. 5:14).
4. As you can see from the story, some people are in hell after death straightaway receive retribution for their sins - tormented in flames. According to the popular theological theory, following the example of the rich man, this happens to dead sinners right up to this day. However, according to the teachings of the Bible, punishment waiting for people only after The Second Coming of Christ and the Great Judgment. Jesus, the prophets and the apostles spoke about this repeatedly:
"Dead will hear the voice of the Son of God And, having heard, they will come to life. Everyone in the graves will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who did good will come forth in the resurrection of life, and those who did evil - in resurrection of condemnation» (John 5:25,28,29).
« The Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His Angels and then he will reward everyone according to his deeds» (Matt. 16:27).
“He who does not accept My words has someone who judges him: the word that I have spoken will be judge him on the last day» (John 12:48).
"Which will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His Kingdom"(2 Tim. 4:1).
“If God did not spare the angels who sinned, but, binding them with the bonds of hellish darkness, betrayed be kept in court for punishment; and if the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, condemned to destruction, turned into ashes, showing example to future wicked people, then, of course, the Lord knows how to deliver the pious from temptation, and the wicked observe for the day of judgment, for punishment» (2 Pet. 2:4,6,9).
« When same will come The Son of Man in His glory and all the holy angels with Him will then sit on the throne of His glory, and will be gathered before Him all nations; and will separate one from the other like a shepherd separates sheep from goats. Then he will say...to those on the left: go away from me, damned, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels"(Matt. 25:31,32,41).
“And the seventh angel sounded, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying: The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever... and Your wrath has come and time to judge the dead» (Rev. 11:15,18).
“Behold, I'm coming soon, And retribution My with me to repay to each according to his works"(Rev. 22:12).
“Therefore, do not judge in any way ahead of time, until the Lord comes, Which and will illuminate hidden in the darkness and will reveal the heart's intentions, and Then everyone will receive praise from God."(1 Cor. 4:5, see also Acts 17:31, Acts 24:15,25, Jude 5,6,15, Rom. 2:5-8,13-16, 1 Pet. 4: 5, 2 Pet. 3:7, 1 Thess. 1:10, 2 Thess. 1:6-10, Rev. 14:7, Rev. 18:8, Matt. 11:22, Matt. 12:36, Luke 11:31,32, Dan 12:1,2,13, Eccl 8:11,12, Heb 10:25-27, Joel 2:31, Mal 4:1, Ps 9:3 ,4, Psalm 95:10,13, Psalm 109:5,6).
That is, according to numerous texts of the Holy Scriptures, the judgment of people and punishment there are still only sinners ahead- after the Second Coming of Christ. It turns out that if we believe in the posthumous suffering of souls, as popular churches teach, then we will be faced with a choice: either admit that the Bible contradicts itself, or accept the theory of two judgments, which is what some churches have done. The “first” judgment is “private” after death to determine the location of the human soul - in the underworld or in heaven, until the Great Judgment, which will take place at the Second Coming of Christ; “second” is “universal”, directly the Great Court.
However, it is not clear why the Bible does not speak about the “first” judgment at all, but only about the “second”. It is also not clear why a “second” Court is needed at all, if supposedly there is a “first” one. It turns out that sinful people, according to the decision of one court, will suffer a little in the underworld until the Second Coming of Christ. And then, according to the decision of the “second” Court, they will either be left to burn forever in Gehenna in more painful conditions, or they will be transferred to a wonderful eternal life? It turns out that those inhabitants of the underworld-hell who died earlier will suffer more, because they will have to suffer longer before the Second Coming of Jesus.
But what about those who are in heaven after death? It is difficult to imagine a situation where a person enjoys paradise and likes it there, but here at the Second Coming the Lord, without asking, takes a person’s spirit from blissful bliss and resurrects the “deserving” one into eternal life. Maybe that person doesn’t want this, because in heaven it’s already good, without a body it’s just pleasure. Everyone has their own tastes…
There is a contradiction between the literal interpretation of the story about the rich man and Lazarus and other texts of the Bible. But this is impossible. This means that we have before us an allegory - a parable.
It is worth noting that the Creed of the Orthodox and Catholic denominations, adopted in the 4th century, also connects the judgment of the living and the dead with the Second Coming of Christ:
“I believe... in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God... who ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, and who will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead».
Although the Symbol is still not disputed in these churches, nevertheless, many doctrines have been added to its teaching over the centuries, including the “double” judgment.
5. It is also worth noting that in the story about the rich man and Lazarus, the reasons why one ended up in the “harsh” hell, and the other in the “soft” one - in Abraham’s bosom are exaggerated. Both now and before, wealth itself was not considered shameful. For example, the famous heroes of the faith Abraham, David, Solomon and others had enormous wealth. And feasts were taken on holidays. All that is known about the rich man is that he feasted brilliantly every day and was not distinguished by a charitable soul, since he did not feed Lazarus at his table, although he constantly saw him at his gate. I think even today not many people will seat all the poor people sitting at their gates at their own table. In general, the rich man is described as a noble man who honors his father Abraham, loves his brothers and cares for them. Let us note that perhaps the rich man even took some part in the life of the poor man Lazarus, since he knew him by name.
In turn, poverty, as such, is also not a criterion, the possession of which is necessary to obtain eternal life. Nothing is said in the parable about the virtues of Lazarus, nor about the reasons for his lifetime torment. So, in the story about the rich man and Lazarus, we do not see the reasons for such a severe punishment of one and a reason for rewarding the second. This means that the story about the rich man and Lazarus is not reality, but an allegory - a parable that aims to teach people something more than just charity.
6. The rich man’s request looks strange. He, suffering in the flames, asks Abraham send to him Lazarus so that he cooled to him tongue with the end of a finger dipped in water. Why didn't he go directly to good Abraham to give him something to drink? Why does he ask for water on the tip of his fingers, and not a cup, for example, because a drop of water clearly will not ease his suffering? Try, at least in a sauna, ask someone to run a wet finger over your tongue and you will see that this will not make you feel any better. There is a situation that is far from reality, which means it is a parable.
7. Three heroes are mentioned in the parable - Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man. Of these, only one rich man does not have a name. If we have a narrative that describes reality, then this shouldn’t happen. Jesus couldn't have forgotten the rich man's name. But we know that in ancient times names had great meaning. The name Lazarus comes from the common Hebrew name El-azar (see Exodus 6:23), which means “God has helped.” So, we again see in the narrative elements that are not similar to reality, but are applicable to the parable.
8. If you carefully read Jesus’ story about the rich man and Lazarus, it is obvious that his heroes are described in real flesh, and not in the form of disembodied spirits. They see each other, communicate, they have eyes, fingers, tongue. That is, if you take the story literally, then it does not fit into the theory of many faiths, according to which only the spirit (“soul”) of the dead resides in hell and heaven.
Some supporters of the posthumous wakefulness of souls explain the mention of the elements of physical bodies in the parable simply: “When a person has lost his arm, it sometimes continues to hurt him. So it is in hell. The spirits staying there do not have bodies, but they continue to feel them, as it were.” However, this explanation is not logical. After all, pain as such and the memory of it are pure physiological processes for which you need real brain And nervous system, that is, the physical body. Exactly brain“tells” us about pain and stores body sensations in memory.
In addition, if the rich man and Lazarus were spirits, then Abraham should have answered the rich man’s request something like this: “Rich man, you are delusional! You're in hell. You have no tongue, and Lazarus has no legs to walk or hands to bring you water. At the same time, no moisture will help you, since you have no body and you have nothing to cool down. It’s your spirit that’s tormented.” But instead of this or a similar explanation, we see Abraham’s reasonable answer to the attentive, adequate rich man, the meaning of which is that Lazarus will not bring water and will not go to his brothers for such and such reasons.
It turns out to be an interesting situation. Many Christians turn a blind eye to the fact that Jesus, in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, mentioned elements of the physical bodies of his heroes, and the other part of the parable, describing their wakefulness after death, is mistaken for the real picture. They say that Christ “embellished” the story about hell a little... Although bodies are shown there, in fact they are only “souls”. A very convenient, but biased position.
What really happened? It’s just that after combining Christianity with paganism, New Christian theologians, who did not know too deeply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, but were familiar with widespread pagan beliefs about the afterlife, saw in the parable a familiar picture - the mythical kingdom of the dead Hades (Hades, Tartarus), and immediately accepted it as pure coin without bothering to analyze the text. Perhaps some of the representatives of the state church later saw the inconsistency of the accepted theological theory with other texts of the Bible, but it was already too late to reverse the move, because then they would have to question all the other tenets of their confession. It so happened that the doctrine of the huge church was built on a parable, that is, an allegory.
In general, the entire doctrinal system of Orthodoxy predisposes to error. If one respected Christian was mistaken and found the support of his contemporaries, then the theological concept he introduced, which took root in the church, was perceived by subsequent generations as a canon of the “holy” church, which could not be questioned. After all, this would mean questioning the doctrine of the infallibility of the church. That is, error, once entering the church, could no longer leave its bosom. Therefore, the mistakes of the church could only multiply over time.
It is worth noting that there are other parables in the Bible that cannot be taken literally. For example, about trees that “let’s go... to anoint a king over us”(see Judges 9:7-15, see also 2 Kings 14:9). Here the olive and fig trees talk to each other. Why not use this parable to construct the doctrine that trees actually communicate and choose their kings? You can also remember Jesus’ parable about the wedding feast (see Matt. 22:1-14). It is difficult to imagine this story in reality. It's hard to imagine what's overwhelming majority The king's subjects refused to go to his son's wedding, having been invited in advance, and did not even bother to come up with a convincing argument for refusal. Moreover, some killed the envoys of their ruler, openly declaring war on him, without fear of retribution and punishment from the king's troops. But as a parable, this story has a deep meaning, describing people who most in their own way they refuse God’s invitation to the Kingdom of Heaven, not wanting to change their lives and even sometimes showing disrespect and aggression towards the “messengers” of the Lord who denounce them and call them.
I hope, dear reader, you are convinced that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is an allegory - a parable. Like any metaphors, the task of a parable is to clearly illuminate and illustrate a specific thought. This means that it is important for believers to understand what the true meaning was intended by the Lord in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. From this lesson of Jesus we can draw several conclusions necessary for salvation:
“Those who want to move from here... can not"(Luke 16:26). Many today ignore this statement of Christ, believing that it applied only to the “former” hell. And now, they say, you can and should pray for the inhabitants of the “renewed” hell. Consider whether Jesus would have issued such a grave warning that had only a short time to take effect before His crucifixion. In fact, the Lord, through this parable, wanted to warn all people about the need today and now to change your life, part with your sins, because then it will be too late - "My blood is shed for many for the remission of sins» (Matt. 26:28).
3. In order not to perish like a rich man, it is necessary listen to Moses and the prophets(See Luke 16:29). That is, you need to study the Word of God, since it gives answers to all questions, including the main one - the condition of salvation for eternal life.
4. Who doesn't get into it into the teaching of Scripture ( Moses and the prophets), that and risen from the dead(see Luke 16:31) Not will listen. Few theologians doubt that Jesus here had in mind his own resurrection. This is what happened later. The Jews, unfamiliar with the prophecies about the Messiah set forth in Scripture, did not recognize Jesus as Christ. Many did not want to believe in Him even when He rose from the dead. This warning is still relevant today: believers who do not know the Bible well do not see in history and the surrounding life the fulfillment of the prophecies contained in it, indicating the approach of the Second Coming of Christ.
Agree, the parable under study sets out a very important message and it was conveyed to people by the Lord in an accessible and visual form.
The strict guardians of the law were aware that each of them was violating the Sabbath rest to save or preserve their property, but they did not dare to openly admit it.
The Parable of Those Invited
At this time, the arriving guests took their places at the dining table, and each of them tried to take a seat closer to the owner, since the most honorable and noble guests always sat in these places.
Noticing such a desire to put themselves above others, Jesus gave them instructions not to arbitrarily sit in first place, not to exalt themselves, but to humbly wait for such an invitation from the host of the feast. With someone who considers himself superior to everyone, who, as a result of such conceit, strives to be the first everywhere, a big trouble can happen: someone more honorable than him will come, and the owner of the feast will ask the impostor to give him a place, and other better places will already be taken, and Then the proud man will stand up in shame and sit in the last place; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted().
How difficult, even almost impossible, for a sinful person to be an impartial judge of his life! Self-love will always find even false justifications for bad actions, and pride will extol and exaggerate the importance of seemingly good ones; and a person will dream about himself, and, like the Pharisee, will consider himself not like others, and such dreams blind, do not allow one to notice one’s shortcomings, do not give room for self-condemnation and prevent self-correction. And such a self-exalting person, who considers himself not like others, and therefore strives everywhere to take first place, will be ashamed and humiliated when, at the final Judgment of the human race, he is offered to take his own, that is, the last place. To prevent such a sad outcome, Christ commands us humility and self-abasement and promises us that those who do not exalt themselves will be exalted.
Noticing that those invited to this feast were all relatives, friends and rich neighbors of the owner, Jesus, turning to him, said: when you give lunch or dinner, do not invite such guests who can also treat you and thereby repay you for your hospitality, but call the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind and the poor in general, who themselves cannot repay you in kind, but for whom they will reward you in the future eternal life.
Speaking - don't invite friends() – Christ does not thereby prohibit friendly and family relations with equals in status, expressed in hospitality and refreshments. However, with these words He warns that for good deeds towards those who do not remain in debt for it, the reward is received here on earth, and therefore one cannot count on a reward for such good deeds in the future life; doing so collects treasures for himself, and does not become rich in God(). He who does good to those from whom he cannot receive recompense, lends to God Which, of course, does not remain in the person’s debt.
On the necessity of self-effort to enter the kingdom of the Messiah
Having heard Jesus' words about the resurrection of the righteous, one of the dinner participants, probably also a Pharisee, said: Blessed is he who eats bread in the Kingdom of God!() By saying this, he obviously meant the Kingdom of God by the Kingdom of the Messiah and, moreover, in the exact meaning that the Pharisees gave it, and since the Pharisees in the kingdom of the Messiah believed that this Kingdom was prepared specifically for them, he who called him blessed whoever tastes bread in this Kingdom undoubtedly considers himself and his peers to be so blessed. But Christ, turning to him, explained to him in a parable that the Pharisees and similar imaginary righteous people would not be participants in the Kingdom of the Messiah.
One man threw a big dinner party, but when he sent his servant to tell those invited that everything was ready, they all, as if by agreement, began to refuse, coming up with various excuses. One excused himself by buying land, another by buying oxen, and the third by getting married. Then the owner of the house sent his servant to bring the poor, the maimed, the lame and the blind from the same city, and when they reclined and there were still free places left, he sent the slave outside the city to call everyone he met, so that there would not be an empty place at dinner.
The meaning of this parable is this: under the guise of a large dinner, the Kingdom of the Messiah is presented, as the Kingdom of God on earth and the Kingdom of Heaven in the future eternal life. The organizer of this dinner, God, invited, through the Old Testament law and the prophets, all the Jewish people to enter the Kingdom prepared for them, and then, when this Kingdom approached, he again sent to those invited to repeat the invitation and, moreover, sent the Messiah Himself. In the parable, Jesus is called a servant because in some prophecies the Messiah was called the servant of the Lord, and also because he appeared in the form of a man, that is, a servant of God. The sent Messiah announced to the Jews: The Kingdom of Heaven has come near (); go, for everything is ready(). But those of the Jews to whom this call mainly applied, who, by their development and knowledge of Scripture, could most likely understand and accept this invitation, that is, the scribes, Pharisees and other leaders of the people, as if by agreement, began to refuse the invitation and didn't go to the dinner party. Then the Lord commanded the Messiah to call the publicans and sinners of the same city, that is, the same people; and when there were still many empty places left, he sent outside the city, that is, the Jewish people, to invite all the pagans to enter the Kingdom of the Messiah. Concluding this parable, the Lord said: none of those invited will taste my supper, for there are many there were them invited, everyone was invited, but not enough it turned out selected ().
The dinner ended and the guests left the Pharisee's house. Probably inspired by the parable he had just heard, someone asked Jesus: Are there really few people being saved?
(The Evangelist does not explain exactly when, where and by whom this question was proposed, but it seems to us that it is most appropriate to place a conversation about this question after the parable of those who are called).
Are there really few people being saved, that is? incoming or worthy to enter the Kingdom of the Messiah, the Kingdom of God and Heaven?
Without directly answering this question, Jesus said that without effort or special effort, it is indeed difficult to enter this Kingdom, the gates of which are narrow. Jesus spoke to the Apostles about the difficulty of entering the narrow path into the narrow gates of eternal life in the Sermon on the Mount (see above chapter 12, p. 373); giving instructions on the same matter now, He added that many would wish to enter this Kingdom, and they won't be able to(), that is, they will wish when it is already too late, when the doors of the Kingdom are closed. Then you who think that this Kingdom is exclusively for you, standing outside his, you'll start knocking on doors, asking you to open them. But the Lord will tell you: I don't know you, where are you from?(). And you will answer: “Why don’t you know, Lord? For we have lived governed by Your law and taught by You through the prophets.” But He will say to you: “Yes, I taught you, but you were deaf to My teaching; you did not want to know Me, and I do not know you; Depart from Me, you workers of iniquity! And you will see how other people will come from all over the world and lie down in the Kingdom of Heaven with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets, and you, the descendants of these righteous people, will be cast out; and behold, those whom you consider to be the last, whom you despise here, will be the first there, and you yourself, who consider yourself to be the first, will become the last.”
Interpreting this speech of Jesus broadly, one can derive from it an edification for all people in general: the narrow path to the narrow gates of the Kingdom of Heaven must be passed in this life, here on earth, through good deeds get rich in God and thereby prepare for yourself free entry into this Kingdom; after death it will be too late: those who did not care about this will find the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven closed in a timely manner and will hear the fatal sentence: “Depart from Me, you workers of unrighteousness!”
The Lord developed this idea even more clearly and vividly in the following parable about the rich man and the beggar Lazarus.
The Parable of the Rich Man and the Beggar Lazarus
One rich man lived his life in luxury, dressed in purple and fine linen and feasted daily, not noticing that the beggar Lazarus lay at his gate, covered with wounds and scabs. Always hungry, the sufferer Lazarus wanted to feed himself at least with the leftovers from the rich man’s table, which he saw being thrown to the dogs, but, apparently, even this was not available to him; no one took pity on his illness, no one bandaged his wounds, and the dogs licked them, thereby preventing their healing. The unfortunate man died, and the rich man died; after death, their positions changed, each received reward according to his deserts: Lazarus was transferred by angels to heaven, and the rich man was cast into hell. The rich man, in terrible torment, began to remember his dissolute life; and the beggar Lazarus appeared to him, suffering at his gate and thus constantly reminding him of his sufferings, to whom, however, he did not pay any attention and did not help him in any way. Thinking about where this sufferer was now, what had become of him, the rich man suddenly saw him standing in the distance with Abraham and prayed: “ Father Abraham! Send Lazarus to me to ease my suffering!” – “ Child! (Abraham answered). Remember your life! Everything that you considered the highest good, what you craved and strived for, you received in abundance; like a rich man, you spent all your days in luxury and bliss; you thought only about yourself and were deaf to the cries of the sufferer, whom you passed by every day, and never once threw him a piece of bread, but he endured all his torments with meekness and humility and did not murmur or complain that he was suffering undeservedly. Therefore, Lazarus, who received nothing from life and, at the same time, retained a pure heart and a soul unsullied by sin, here he is consoled, and you Having taken everything from life for yourself and done nothing good for others, you are now suffering, and you suffer well deserved. Moreover, none of us can either save you from your torment or even alleviate it, since there is a great gulf between us and you and communications are impossible: those who want to go from here to you cannot, and also from there they cannot go to us ()».
Having now realized all the madness of his life, the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his surviving five brothers as a witness to the bitter fate that befell him, so that he could teach them how to live and how to get rid of this place of torment.
"They have Moses and the prophets, - Abraham answered, - let them listen to them(); they proclaimed the will of God, and whoever does it will be saved.” – “ No, Father Abraham(). My brothers are deaf to the voice of Moses and the prophets, they do not listen to them, just as I did not listen; but if any special the Omen, If one of the dead came to them and told them what was happening here in the afterlife, they would probably repent.”
If someone came from the other world and thereby proved its existence, then we would believe in the immortality of the soul and eternal life beyond the grave! This is what those who do not believe in Christ and, consequently, in the truth of His words say now. They, like the Pharisees, need a sign from heaven. But the sign is not given to them. Why? Yes, because if such signs were given to every unbeliever, at all times and everywhere where people live, then these signs would have to be continuous and ubiquitous; Moreover, if such a sign were given to any unbeliever, if his dead friend or relative appeared to him, then there is no doubt that he would explain such a phenomenon with his morbid imagination and still would not believe it.
If Moses and the Prophets are not listened to your brothers then, if someone were to rise from the dead, not only will not repent, but even they won't believe it ().
The Jews did not believe Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead, and for this they were expelled from the Kingdom of God, founded by Christ here on earth, and in the future life they will knock in vain on the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven, from the depths of which a voice will be heard: “Get away from Me, you workers of unrighteousness!” »
At the Feast of Renewal, Jesus openly declared Himself the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father. And this, in connection with the miracles performed by Jesus, should have convinced the Apostles that their Teacher was truly the Son of God, and not the Jewish Conqueror King. But, apparently, they too were seduced by the humanity of Jesus, and they could not understand how Jesus could be the Son of God who came down from heaven, when everyone knows that He is a carpenter from Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary? The secret of the birth of Jesus was hidden from them; They learned about it from the lips of the Mother of God much later, after the descent of the Holy Spirit on them. In addition, the Apostles became so accustomed to the false teaching of the scribes about the Kingdom of the Messiah that they looked at the teaching of Jesus Christ, so to speak, through glasses stained by this false teaching. The apostles, of course, more than once came to the conclusion that Jesus, who does with his own power what only God can do, must be believed unconditionally in everything; and they undoubtedly, at times, were ready to believe Him and did; but thoughts about the universal kingdom of the Jews, when faced with thoughts about Jesus, the Son of God, should have led the Apostles into complete bewilderment; and the more often they thought about the powerful universal kingdom of the Jews (and they, as true Jews, could not help but think about it), the more their faith in Jesus, the Son of God, should have weakened.
The apostles' request to increase their faith
They undoubtedly experienced a painful struggle between faith and doubt; but they could not emerge victorious from this struggle, dispel all doubts on their own, and therefore turned to Jesus with a prayer: increase our faith(), help our unbelief.
Jesus did not do anything now to increase the faith of the Apostles, but left time to complete the strengthening and strengthening of their faith; He repeated only what was said before about the strength and power of true, unshakable, never allowing doubt, faith (for details, see above, p. 514).
So, today we are looking at the 16th chapter of Luke, namely the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
This parable is a stumbling block for some. Many who come out to preach on this parable, for some reason consider it their duty to tell and convince everyone that this is not a parable, but a real story that happened somewhere to someone. And then they begin to draw conclusions that sometimes border on the world of unscientific fiction. Let's look today, firstly, at the question of why this story is fictitious, and, secondly, at the purpose for which Christ brought this parable.
The first task, in my opinion, is easier. Although, some theologians try to level out this issue. A very simple way out, for example, was found by my deeply respected John MacArthur: “... some believe that this was not a made-up story, but a real event that took place. In any case, Christ uses it in the same way as all His parables - to teach a lesson, in this case for the benefit of the Pharisees" (1) That is, he seems to be saying: it is not so important whether it is a parable or not, the spiritual lesson is important. But in my opinion, in this case it is very important to show that this is a fictional story. Because if we take history at face value, a number of contradictions arise with our soteriology and eschatological views. So let's pay attention to the following:
- In general, Christ never told abstract real stories. It's hard to imagine that he only did this once in Luke 16. Remember, all the real stories Christ told were directly related to the listeners. Why? I think because it is very difficult to draw general conclusions from real stories. In any real story there are many pitfalls and there are always different “facets”, “pros and cons”, “views” and “opinions”. Therefore, when speaking about any spiritual truths, Christ used parables. They reveal the essence and spiritual lessons much better.
- This parable is similar to the ancient rabbinic legend (2), except that in the legend the rich man did good, and this was credited to him in the afterlife. Christ, as it were, draws a caricature of the story known to the Pharisees, ridiculing the weakness of their spiritual views (but more on that below).
- Often, when they prove that this story is taken from real life, they point out that the name of the beggar is indicated - Lazarus. This name, pronounced Eliezer - (Hebrew אליעזר - my God helped me), was quite common and even today we know at least one more Lazarus in the New Testament - this time. Two is the fact that rabbinic parables very often contain names. If you have ever read or listened to recordings of rabbis at least once in your life (for example, the well-known Rav Asher Kushnir), then you probably noticed that the characters in the stories are always given a name. Since in this case Christ refers his listeners to Jewish wisdom, it is logical to assume that He will also use the method of constructing this wisdom. Three - this parable is of a narrative nature, it is not taken from natural or social phenomena. The plot is important in it, not just the truth. And since there is a plot and characters, then, of course, there must be a name. This did not always happen, but in the parables of Jesus Christ there were largely simplified plots or events and phenomena from everyday life and nature were described. And four - the presence of a name in a poor man highlights the essence of the difference between him and the rich man. Amorphous “Rich Man” versus concrete “Lazarus”. Especially considering the meaning of the name (which was obvious to the listeners, but not known to us without a dictionary), one can see an artistic and logical meaning in giving the beggar a name.
- Let us also pay attention to a number of some absurdities that appear if we approach this narrative as a real story. The first thing that catches your eye is the obvious discrepancy with soteriology, that is, the biblical teaching about salvation. Scripture is clear that we are justified by faith. And only by faith. In the parable, there is a clear motive that the rich man went to hell because he was rich and “received good things on earth,” while the beggar received salvation from the torments of hell because he “received evil things.” Sometimes you can hear such thoughts that, they say, the beggar was saved by faith, that he quoted the Torah and lived like a Christian. But the rich man, he was a villain and a lawless man and suffered from gluttony, and for this he ended up in hell. And yet, many leave a “window” behind them (they definitely leave it) that this parable does not mean at all that the rich will all go to hell, and the poor will be in heaven (some preachers, apparently, think: “what if I still become rich” , while others worry about rich parishioners or listeners). I have always been surprised by this fact that everyone who preaches on this parable seems to consider it their sacred duty to emphasize that not every rich man will be in hell, but the poor man will be in heaven. Can you guess why? That's right, because this thought is clearly, subconsciously read from this text! And the brothers, instead of understanding the meaning inherent in this, rush to justify the rich and settle the poor.
- The next absurdity is some details that are characteristic of the Talmud, but are not found anywhere in Scripture. These are such little things as: the fact that angels carry the soul of the deceased to heaven, that there is a certain “bosom of Abraham” where these souls rest, that Abraham plays a dominant role in heaven (although Revelation paints a different picture). These are all details characteristic of the ideas about the afterlife among the Pharisees in the Jewish tradition. This fact also suggests that the parable was, as it were, adjusted to suit the Pharisees.
- Another absurdity is the fact that Abraham is talking to the tormented rich man. I wonder if this is just Abraham's privilege, or if we too can look at the tormented sinners and ask them a few questions? That is clearly artistic hyperbole. An absolutely impossible event.
Obviously, the event is unreal. Moreover, this story is not even plausible, precisely because of the absurdities described above. Some theologians, trying to resolve these contradictions with soteriology, go the wrong way. They come not from the text, but from an already existing concept. This is what William Macdonald does (which, frankly, surprised me, since before I thought his comment was quite good): “ It must be made clear from the outset that the nameless rich man was not condemned to hell because of his wealth. The basis of salvation is faith in the Lord, and people will be condemned for refusing to believe in Him. In particular, this rich man showed that he did not have true saving faith by his indifferent contempt for the beggar who lay scabbed at his gate. If the love of God had been in him, he could not have lived in luxury, comfort and security while a fellow tribesman lay at the gate of his house and begged for crumbs of bread. He would have entered the Kingdom of God with effort if he had given up the love of money. It is also true that Lazarus was not saved because of his poverty. In the matter of saving his soul, he trusted the Lord.” On what basis does the author make such statements as the fact that the rich man would definitely show compassion if he were a believer (I think not many of us fed sick homeless people at our table), or that the beggar Lazarus “in the matter of saving his soul he trusted the Lord"(3) - completely unclear. There are even more interesting interpretations, even more divorced from the text. “Although Lazarus was a beggar, he collected a wealth of virtues in his soul. Lazarus did not envy the rich man; he did not dream of sitting at the same table with him, living in his house, or riding in his chariot. He didn’t want to take his money or food away from him. Lazarus was not proud - he was ready to eat with the dogs what was left from the feasts. Therefore, for Lazarus, all his suffering remained on earth, but humility, meekness, and kindness followed with his soul into the future life.”(from here). This does not follow from the text. By the way, the well-known Matthew Henry does not doubt the question at all and immediately calls this story a parable. (4)
So, Christ tells a story that is similar to a distorted Jewish tradition, which is based on human ideas about heaven and hell (namely in the Jewish tradition), and also gives a distorted idea of salvation through poverty. What is this story for? I think some particularly zealous adherents of traditions will begin to challenge the above conclusions, perhaps. But look at all these conclusions together, and you will see the evidence that this story had some special purpose that cannot be understood from a quick, superficial reading. And perhaps we shouldn’t challenge the conclusions, but maybe just try to understand? Look at chapter 16 from a different angle?
So, we smoothly move on to the second point of reasoning. Why did Christ tell this story? What did he want to achieve by this in the people listening to Him?
Let's look at the context of chapter 16. Let's start a little from afar. Chapter 15 begins with publicans and sinners approaching Christ, to which the Pharisees responded with murmuring. This is understandable. I think that today if local thieves and prostitutes were constantly surrounding some preacher, it would cause irritation and murmurs among some of our orthodox believers. Christ responds to the murmur of the Pharisees with a parable. Let us note that the conversation is with the Pharisees! He successively gives them three parables, we call them: about the lost sheep, about the lost coin, about the prodigal son. The point of the first two parables is simple: God's true children rejoice when Christ finds the lost sheep. The shepherd's friends and the woman's friends (apparently ten drachmas was a dowry) symbolize the children of God rejoicing at the found loss. These parables denounced the Pharisees; they showed that by grumbling, they reveal their essence - people who are far from understanding God. They are not His friends because they are not pleased with what makes Him happy—found sinners.
Craig Keener notes that the value of the lost increases with each parable - one in a hundred, one in ten, and finally one in two. The structure of all three parables is similar to the colophon - the same verbal structure at the end of the passage: “rejoice with me: I have found my lost sheep/drachma/son” (15:6, 9, 22-24). But the last parable does not end there. In the first three passages, Christ seems to invite the Pharisees: “Rejoice with Me!” But He knows that this call will remain unanswered and He begins to reveal the true reason for their grumbling and discontent. He expands the last parable with a continuation. This is a story about the eldest son. In this parable there was a younger son who mismanaged what he had, wasting everything - this is an image of the tax collectors and sinners around Him. The eldest son also misused what he had. The image of the eldest son was obviously identified with the Pharisees and scribes, who, although they were close to the true one - they knew and interpreted the Law, led a seemingly righteous lifestyle, but were far from the living God. After Christ told this parable to the Pharisees, he turns to the disciples and tells them the parable of the unfaithful steward ( 1-13
poetry). Many copies of this parable have been broken, so I won’t interpret it here, maybe another time. However, its essence is clear in principle: make good use of what you have here on earth. Spend your wealth for the benefit of people. Why does Christ move on to the topic of finance and property relations? The answer awaits us in 14
verse: “The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they laughed at Him.” The love of money, if we remember, was a serious illness of the Pharisees, for which Christ repeatedly denounced them. Suffice it to recall the corvan. He also called them “devourers of widows’ houses” (Matthew 23:14, Mark 12:40, Luke 20:47). What does this mean? Apparently, the Pharisees taught this: “donate to the temple, here you will suffer, but there you will be comforted.” Thus, taking the last food from the widows who brought their donations to the Temple. I daresay that the passage with 14-18
- This is the climax to which Christ led the Pharisees throughout chapters 15 and 16. The true reason for the Pharisees' rejection of Christ is revealed - their love of money (verse 14), a distorted idea of the Law (verse 18), their false righteousness (verse 15). Further, Christ shows that the Law and the Prophets existed before John the Baptist, now a new Messianic era begins, but the Law has not lost its relevance. And in order to enter the new kingdom, you need to make an effort (in this context, effort means the correct disposal of unrighteous wealth). But the problem is that the Pharisees did not listen to this Law (see verse 31), they adjusted it to themselves (see verse 18). And in order to illustrate their false path, Christ applies an original literary solution, He places them in their own teaching. He takes a rabbinic parable, changes it to suit their views and says: think about where you would be if God reasoned the same way as you? What the Pharisees taught in their love of money and falsehood looks ugly in this parable. Indeed, for the Jews of that time, poverty (when you pick up crumbs and dogs lick your wounds) was a sign that God did not favor you; the picture of Lazarus lying in scabs and surrounded by dogs was clearly disgusting to those listening to Jesus. Christ says to the Pharisees: this is who will sit next to Abraham in your world, and you yourself will suffer in hell (in your own world), because here on earth you received everything good. According to your own teaching.
And the final touch to the conversation: Weaving wise instruction into the parable, Christ shows that the main problem of the Pharisees, their root - they have the Word of God, the sacred Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets), which they don't listen. And another subtle allusion to the future: “Even if someone rises from the dead, they will not believe it”... Wasn’t Jesus alluding to His resurrection?
So, to summarize briefly, we can say that this is not even a parable, but sarcasm. I don't know why everyone is so afraid of this word. This is a completely normal literary device. Read the Wikipedia article on this topic. Just one quote from there: “Sarcasm is a mockery that can be opened with a positive judgment, but in general always contains a negative connotation and indicates a deficiency in a person, object or phenomenon, that is, in relation to which it is happening. Like satire, sarcasm involves the fight against hostile phenomena of reality by ridiculing them.” Christ ridicules the teachings of the Pharisees, while condemning them. This is sarcasm. There is no evil in it directed directly at the Pharisees, but at their teaching and their sins. But if you are more comfortable, you don’t have to call this parable sarcasm, you can say that it’s just a special literary device that ridicules the teachings of the Pharisees and exposes their spiritual bankruptcy. That will work too, I think :)
And today we need to reconsider our lives and pray to God so that He will reveal where we need to correct our attitude towards “unrighteous wealth”, so that He will show whether we are correctly managing what the Lord has entrusted to us? And if necessary, we will correct our ways!
God bless you.
(1) Study Bible with Commentary by John MacArthur, Slavic Evangelical Society, 2005 ISBN 1-56773-009-4, Page. 1534
(2) Craig Keener "Biblical Cultural-Historical Commentary", Part 2 New Testament, Myrtle, 2005 ISBN 5-88869-157-7, Pp. 194
(3) William Magdonald, Bible Commentary for Christians New Testament, CLV, 2000 ISBN 3-89397-621-3, Pp. 300-301
(4) Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Books of the New Testament, Volume 2, 1999, Page. 326
