Does Luke 16:19-31 Teach Us Anything About the Afterlife?

One of the great hopes of every believer is the resurrection. Because of the victory of Jesus over sin and death and his resurrection, we also have the hope of entering into eternal life. Our physical death is temporary and those who have passed on wait for the final victory of Christ when the world will be judged and we will all enter into the presence of God in heaven to be with Him forever. Remarkably, there is not a lot of detail given in the Bible about what is happening while departed believers are in this intermediate state between the physical death of our bodies and our resurrection. The passage that appears to give the most information is the story of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke 16:19-31. 

This passage would clearly seem to be of great importance in our understanding of what happens after we die. The problem is that many scholars believe that this story is a parable. As such, it is not necessarily a recounting of an actual event but is rather an illustration to support a larger point. Because of this, we must be careful about placing too much emphasis on the details rather than on the main point of the message. The message seems clearly to be that our deeds in this lifetime are going to be judged and that the teaching of scripture is sufficient warning, instruction, and testimony to this fact. Essentially, we must believe and repent because there will be a time when it is too late.

If this is a parable does that mean we can learn nothing from it about the afterlife? Even if this is not a record of an actual interaction between two real people are we to assume that none of the details are to be trusted? Beyond the question of it being a parable, there are certain difficulties with assuming that this is a literal telling of events. For example, if these are souls that are separated from their bodies and waiting for resurrection then how is it that they speak in bodily terms of having fingers, tongues, and being thirsty etc.? It is possible this is metaphorical language intended to help us to contrast the comfort of the one with the torment of the other rather than a literal description. 

Let me begin by saying that I am not completely convinced this is a parable, there are reasons to think it may not be. My goal, however, is not to answer that particular question but rather to point out that even if it is there is still much here we can learn. 

First, although this may be a teaching illustration rather than an actual event it is important to note that it was the practice of Jesus to use literal illustrations in his parables. For example, the actual events of the parable of the Good Samaritan may never have occurred but the characters, setting, and events were all representative of the actual world the hearers lived in. The same is true for all of the illustrations Jesus used. To put it another way, although the parables may not have been historical events there is no reason that they could not have. They are drawn from real life situations. I think that Luke 16 is very likely the same sort of thing. The only difference is that in this case Jesus is drawing upon something that the average farmer would not have observed because he was not yet dead. In addition, the ideas of a place of comfort and torment were discussed in the rabbinical literature and so Jesus is working with concepts that were probably not unfamiliar to his listeners.

Therefore, even if the sensory language is metaphorical and even if the particular conversation is just an illustration we can likely draw some conclusions from the passage. First, if the main point is the unalterable reward or punishment (justice) then we must assume that there is consciousness in the intermediate state because concepts such as comfort and torment, whether physical or not, require consciousness to be meaningful. 

Some have taught that the soul sleeps awaiting the final judgment. Although the Bible often speaks of death as sleep (Matt. 9:24, 27:52; John 11:11; Acts 7:60, 13:36; 1 Cor. 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thess. 4:13, 5:10) this language should be understood metaphorically. It is language designed to indicate the temporary nature of this separation of spirit from body. Just as sleep will come to an end, so will death. For example, Jesus says of His friend Lazarus that he had fallen asleep (John 11:11). After the apostles misunderstand Him, He plainly tells them that Lazarus is dead (John 11:14). “Sleep" is a common Biblical metaphor for death. 

The type of consciousness Jesus describes in Luke 16 is also supported elsewhere in the New Testament. For example, the apostle Paul, when speaking about dying said, "we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8). In Philippians 1:23 Paul says “to live is Christ and to die is gain.” This hardly makes sense unless there is a consciousness after death. Jesus, Himself, told the thief on the cross next to Him, "today you will be with me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43) and the author of Hebrews explains in chapter 12 that we worship in front of a great cloud of witnesses that apparently includes the heroes of the faith and “the spirits of just men made perfect”. In Revelation John speaks of dead believers who are conscious of what is happening on the earth and are petitioning God to act (Revelation 6:9-10).

I do not have room to develop it here but I think we can also demonstrate from other passages that the chasm between the two experiences is unbridgeable and there is one life, then judgment. Although the final judgment has not yet come, those whose physical lives have ended are aware of their status and have in some sense already entered into rest or torment. It seems, therefore that even if we accept that Luke 16:19-31 is an illustration and may possibly not be the record of an actual event, and even if we accept that some of the language is likely metaphorical, it remains an important passage dealing with what happens between physical death and resurrection.

Newtown

Like most everyone else my heart is very heavy as I think about what happened in Newtown Connecticut. I reflected upon what might be appropriate to post as I reflect upon those events. Our prayers are with those families. I do not believe I can add anything of any substance to what Dr. Mohler posted on his blog Friday. I encourage you to read his thoughts Here. 

Salvation of the Fittest? Grace, God’s Glory, and Spiritual Darwinism

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)

Christians talk about grace a lot. Unfortunately, we do not all mean the same thing when we use the word. Most Christians agree that grace means “unmerited favor” but it seems a common statement of definition does not solve the problem. The difference comes down to what exactly “favor” refers to in a Christian context. What is it that we receive that we do not merit?

The fundamental teaching of Christianity is that we cannot save ourselves and any hope of salvation is necessarily dependent on the grace of God in Christ. The question is to what extent does this grace extend? Historically, evangelical Christians have understood the Bible to teach that salvation is completely of grace and that we do not contribute to it whatsoever. Others have argued instead that God’s grace is a helping grace that strengthens a believer to complete their journey of faith. Both agree that sinners cannot be saved apart from grace but one side thinks that God’s grace initiates faith and desire for God and the other side thinks God’s grace is a response to faith and a desire for God.

It is an important issue because either view has major implications for how we understand the Gospel. Is our justification before God solely the work of God (monergism) or is it a cooperative effort between God and sinners (synergism)? I believe the Bible teaches that justification is the work of God alone and that apart from a gracious work of God we do not even know we need to be saved let alone have a desire for it. As the old song says, “twas grace that taught my heart to fear”.

Most people who hold a concept of helping grace that has God and sinners cooperating to achieve salvation are careful to give the credit for salvation to God. The reasoning goes that without the grace of God, those who desire to be saved could not be therefore God alone should be glorified. Even so, one cannot have a cooperative view of salvation where God is completing a process that initiates within the sinner and attribute salvation fully to God. If God is responding to a desire or faith in the sinner then both elements (this desire and God’s response) are necessary. The result is that we end up with the kind of thing where you do the first 1% and God does the other 99%.

My reading of the Bible leads me to believe that God is not content to be given 99% of the glory for saving sinners. There are many biblical and theological arguments related to this issue but there is one very simple observation that I think highlights the difficulty of the view that God is responding to an impulse in the sinner. Ultimately, this view degenerates into a type of spiritual Darwinism.

Darwin argued that there are characteristics in some animals that make them better suited to feed and reproduce than others. As a result, those creatures best suited to their environment would survive and pass on their genes. Over time, the strong species would survive and the weak would become extinct. In Darwinism, the providential hand of God is removed from the process and the only forces that are left are the environment and the intrinsic characteristics of the individual creatures. If God is responding to an impulse of some sort in the sinner then He cannot also be the cause of that impulse. The cause must then be within the sinner himself, his environment, or some combination of the two.

Imagine the following scene: On Judgment Day, there will be two groups of people before the throne of God. One group will enter into heaven and the other will enter into eternal punishment. Suppose that the synergistic view is correct and we were to ask someone who was in the group waiting to enter into heaven how it is that they came to be in that group. They might respond that they will enter heaven because God, in His grace, has saved them. We might then logically ask why it is that they have been saved when many others have not. I imagine that they are likely to respond that they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and trusted in Him as their savior.

At this point, if we were to ask why it is that they believed and accepted this message while those in the other group did not, what would they say? They certainly will not want to say that they were more intelligent, more spiritual, or more sensitive than all those who were lost. Maybe they would point out that there were many believers in their lives that prayed for them, encouraged them, and shared the truth with them but then there will be many in the other line who had equal or better support in this regard. What within a sinner would give them an advantage in developing a desire or faith? None of the potential answers seem satisfying.

I know of no Christian that is comfortable saying that ultimately there is something within them that led to their salvation no matter how much they want to protect a human role in the process. If, however, God is not initiating the process and is instead responding then this seems to be an inevitable conclusion. In order to believe in a cooperative view of grace one must admit that there is something within particular sinners that gives them an advantage. Just as in biology if you remove the design of God from the equation you end up with creature/environment determinism. The grace of God is reduced to salvation of the fittest.

I cannot imagine anyone who on that day will not give all glory to God for what He has done for him or her. I cannot imagine anyone who will point to themselves as the reason. Rather I think we will join the heavenly chorus we see in the book of Revelation. Shouting, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” and “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God” (Rev. 7:10, 19:1).

Unconverted vs. Unreached

Before ascending into heaven, Jesus gave the church a command to evangelize. In what became known as the Great Commission Jesus told His disciples that all authority had been given to Him and they were to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20 ESV)

Clearly one of the main responsibilities of the church is to share the gospel. Since each individual congregation has limited resources, they have to make decisions about how best to fulfill this commission to preach and teach. Recently, I have had a number of conversations about missionary outreach and I am surprised by how often I heard a particular opinion that I would like to address. In at least three of these conversations, well-intentioned believers have told me that they think that their churches should focus on doing missionary work in their local communities. In each of these cases, it was pointed out that there were many needs and many “unreached” people within a few miles of where their church met. These brothers and sisters would prefer that the missionary resources of their church be focused on those local needs rather than sent to the other side of the world.

The desire to see those near us turn to Christ is certainly God honoring. It is also a good thing for us to wish to help meet the needs of those in our own communities, particularly when the needs (both spiritual and physical) in those communities are so great as they are in American cities. The idea that we should focus our attention on the “unreached” people in our own communities, however, fails to make an important distinction. It is true that there are many unconverted people in our communities but it is generally not true that they are unreached. We have to be careful that we do not fail to understand the difference between those that are unconverted and those who are unreached.

In most places in the United States, there are plenty of opportunities for anyone who is interested to find a church, attend a Bible study, or get a Bible of their own. While many people in our country reject the gospel it is typically not because they lack access to people or resources where they can learn about it. In many places in the world, this is not the case. According to The JoshuaProject, there are still an estimated 2.8 billion people that are completely unreached. This means that they live in places where they do not have any access to Bibles, there are no indigenous believers, and they are likely to die without ever hearing the gospel even once.

The local mission of the church is of great importance. We should have a burden for those around us to accept the Gospel and be saved. The spiritual needs in our communities are very great and I do not want to minimize that. Even so, we have to avoid a provincial attitude where we retreat into our own communities and ignore our responsibility to the broader mission of the Church. There remain places where there is no translation of the Bible to read, no preacher to hear, and no believers to share their hope. We must not be indifferent to these needs, Jesus commands otherwise.

If you are interested in thinking about this further, I suggest you listen to the following sermon delivered by Pastor David Platt earlier this year at the T4G conference. Pastor Platt explains how a belief in God’s sovereignty fuels a death defying passion for missions. He highlights the distinction between the unconverted and the unreached and gives a memorable exhortation to the Church to share the gospel with the unreached.

Dull Reading is Misinterpretation

Pastors and teachers spend a lot of time ensuring that they are properly interpreting the Bible. To do this they must not only study the text but must also study how to study. A continual examination of the appropriate methods of interpretation and application characterize those who feel the weight of their responsibility to teach the Word of God to His people. The major concern is always that the message taught is the message that God intended when He breathed forth the passage. Often, however, we spend so much time concerned about our explanation of the text that we forget that the reading of the text aloud also involves a process of interpretation. If our presentation of the text does not convey the tone and emphasis of the author, we give a misinterpretation even though we faithfully share the inerrant words. The Word of God is not boring and when we read it to people as though it is the list of ingredients on the back of a cereal box, we fail to communicate its message accurately and do violence to the text.

At no point should our teaching or preaching degenerate into a stage performance, but many of us could learn valuable lessons from those who have finely tuned their oral interpretation skills. The reason why listening to Alexander Scourby or James Earl Jones read the Bible is so much more powerful than listening to ourselves read is not just because they have been gifted with wonderful voices. It is because they have been trained in the art of oral interpretation. They are able to use emphasis, pauses, and varied speed and volume to vividly convey the imagery and tone of the text to the mind of the listeners. I am not at all advocating preachers or teachers being overly dramatic. We certainly do not want to use rhetorical devices that distract from the message, but a certain amount of oral interpretation is necessary to communicate the text faithfully. If we read Paul’s warnings, the exhortations of the prophets, or Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees without conveying the cutting power, urgency, and boldness of those statements we deprive the congregation of the full impact of what God has revealed even though all of the content is there.

As teachers and readers of the Bible, we are supposed to declare the full counsel of God. If we fail to communicate the tone and tension of the passages we read, we fall short of what we are called to do. We all know that we may hear different preachers preach the same text and essentially make the same points and yet one message will be powerful while the other will be forgettable. Often the reason is not that the observations or applications of one are any better than the other but rather that the better preacher takes time to let the Word itself settle into minds of the congregation rather than hurrying through it to get to what he wants to say. I believe that if we spend more time carefully communicating the words of the biblical text itself we would serve our churches better.

This advice is not limited just to preachers and teachers. Often one of the most underappreciated elements of the worship service is the scripture reading. It does not help that it often seems to be tacked onto or squeezed into the flow of the service. Sadly, some churches have eliminated the practice altogether. Why is it that God’s people often do not respond to the scripture reading? It is, after all, the very word of God. Perhaps it is because quite often it is not allowed to breathe. The power and majesty of the text are frequently undermined by our poor delivery of it. I am convicted that this is an area that I need to work on in my own teaching. I pray that if you are a person who has an opportunity to read the Bible publicly that you would give some prayerful thought to this issue. God is not dull, His word is not boring, and our communication of His revelation should not obscure that.

God Bless

Is The Bible Hearsay?

The testimony of the Bible is the foundation for the Christian faith. Many have argued, however, that the testimony the Bible gives is hearsay. As such, they argue that it would not even be admissible in court and is insufficient as testimonial evidence for anything it affirms. One of the best examples of this argument is found in the writing of the American revolutionary Thomas Paine who was one of the first to publish it widely for a popular audience. Paine is most famous for his pamphlets Common Sense and Rights of Man, but he also penned a theological treatise (arguing for Deism) called The Age of Reason where along with various other attacks on the Bible, he offers the hearsay argument against the Christian faith.

Paine writes, “But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.” (Paine, The Age of Reason, Section 1)

This argument goes right to the heart of the obligation of humankind to accept the Word of God and so it deserves an answer. A common Christian response is to offer an analysis of types of evidence and testimony, usually pointing out that in any case not all hearsay is inadmissible in court. Often, this is followed by evidence that the text of scripture is historically reliable and so forth. These responses may have their place but in this case, the response must address something more fundamental. Technically speaking the criticism is a straw man argument because although it might work on a popular level it does not properly address the Christian doctrine of how revelation through the Word of God functions.

The thrust of the argument is that we believe that God revealed certain information to prophets or apostles who then told others, either in person or through their writing. That, however, is not the Christian doctrine. Some modern theologians have argued that the Bible is the record of God’s revelation but the traditional Protestant view is not that the Bible is a record of revelation but that the Bible is revelation. This is a small distinction but it makes a massive difference.

Hearsay describes an indirect communication as when a person receives information that is at least one level removed from the source. The Christian view of revelation, however, is that the Bible is direct communication from God to those who read or hear it. We do not consider the Bible to be an indirect communication. We do not understand its accuracy to be dependent upon the veracity of Moses, Paul, or John. It is in every sense the Word of God and people are therefore under obligation to believe it. The Bible itself makes this claim in various places, perhaps most clearly in Paul’s 2^nd letter to Timothy. Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16 ESV) He is claiming unequivocally that God is the author of the Bible. The claims are not the claims of the apostles and prophets; they are the very claims of God. The transmission of the Bible is therefore a miraculous process whereby God reveals through rather than merely to His chosen messengers.

The written Word of God is therefore similar to the incarnate Word of God in that it is both human and divine. The scriptures are the thoughts of God expressed through human language and literature. The Bible is not merely a witness to revelation, nor does it only become revelation in encounter, or depend on the responses of men for its validity or its standing as revelation. The inspiration of its writing is not in the sense that God dictated each word but rather that the Holy Spirit influenced the mind of the human author such that he selected out of his own experience and vocabulary exactly those words that conveyed God’s message precisely. These human words are therefore properly God’s words though communicated through the particular style and vocabulary of the various human authors.

The message is not mediated to us through the prophets or apostles in the sense that it is a message they received and then give to us. Rather, the message is mediated directly to us through the work of God the Holy Spirit as His word is read or preached. As a result, anyone who has read the Bible, heard a scripture reading, or heard a faithful exposition of the Bible from a teacher or preachers has heard the very voice of God and is therefore under obligation to submit to it. If, as Paine argues, revelation is limited to the first communication then based upon a proper understanding of the doctrine of the Bible any who have heard the message have received direct testimony from God. They will therefore be responsible for their acceptance or rejection of it. 

Bible Study Tips: Look for Pattern Variation

I have written often about how important it is to identify repeated words and concepts when studying the Bible. Doing so helps us to identify the main themes and topics within the book or passage that we are studying. The value of paying close attention to repetition, however, is not limited to this role. Often slight variation on common or expected repetition can provide helpful insight as well. This works at both a big-picture level (something I plan to deal with in a future post) and on the micro level which is where today’s Bible study tip is focused. In this post, I want to explore how a slight variation on a common repetition can add reinforcement to a particular theme that is in view. Of course, our goal in study should always be to understand the plain meaning of the text but these subtle reinforcements of the message help us to appreciate the richness of the Bible and the glory of God in His revelation of Himself.

As an example let us examine one of the statements that Jesus makes while on the cross. Both Matthew and Mark record that “…about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

(Matthew 27:46 ESV, c.f. MK 15:34)

The emphasis of this verse is clear enough. Jesus is asking why God has abandoned Him.

For the first time Jesus is experiencing separation from the Father as He takes upon himself the sins of His people. He is experiencing a separation from the Father that He has never known. Theologically we understand that this separation is the result of God’s righteous judgment of sin. Many people point out that Christ’s words here are a quotation from the 22^nd Psalm and that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of David’s famous lament. What many people often miss, however, is just how unique these words actually are in the mouth of our Lord.

Jesus prayed constantly. The Bible repeatedly describes Him praying or going off to pray. In most cases we are not told exactly what He prayed about but there are at least 10 or 12 times where some of the specific words He used are recorded. Remarkably, this verse and the parallel verse in Mark are the only instances I know of where Jesus does not address God as Father when speaking to Him. In fact, when He teaches the disciples how to pray He instructs them to address God as Father also.

Whatever else might be intended by the use of “father” as a title for God it is certain that a certain intimate relationship is implied. Father, while being a title of authority and respect, is also a signifier of a close relationship. It is therefore interesting that the only place where Jesus does not address God as “Father” is when He is crying out to ask why He has been forsaken. It is only when Jesus is aware of His separation from God (due to our sin) that He addresses God as sovereign deity rather than the normal address of familiarity. While the meaning of the verse is sufficiently clear, knowing this detail adds gravity to the scene and reinforces the theme of separation. Not only do we see the pain of our Lord as He cries out to God but the very words that He uses indicate how dramatically His relationship with the Father has changed as He takes the place we deserve.

By noticing this slight alteration to the normal pattern that Jesus uses when He prays we are able to notice a “layer” of the text that reinforces the theme and deepens the force of the statement. Paying close attention to these slight variations can often lead to observations about passages that deepen our understanding. If you are interested in taking this further I suggest you begin by studying each of the introductions to Paul’s letters. Look carefully at how each one slightly alters the general pattern then pay close attention to how the variations relate to the message of each particular letter. You can then go on to apply this kind of observation to other texts.

I pray God blesses your continued study.