Song of God. Lecture Nine. The TWO HANDS OF GOD.

[Rebbe]

The Song of God

A Fresh Appraisal of the Christian Doctrine of the Ultimate Destiny of Humankind:
IMCF Lectures on God's Universal Salvation

by

Les Aron Gosling, Messianic Rebbe



Copyright © BRI, 1996
Lecture Format © 2016
All Rights Reserved Worldwide

Originally Produced as a BRI Study Manual



LECTURE NINE

THE TWO HANDS OF GOD

It is difficult to rescue glory for God out of the tragedies of life.

However, this depends upon our theology.

As a Messianic believer and lecturer I must insist that the Gentile Christian community (by and large universally) got the intent, purpose and plan of God for humankind wrong. And it got the Gracious story-plot wrong. Originally the Jewish Messianic Community of the Mashiach understood the basics of God's plan of salvation for his fallen creatures. But they soon replaced Grace with works. The Church early replaced the imposition of God's Grace in election with the doctrine of man's free will in accepting Yeshua as Saviour. (The early church in the west called Yeshu by the westernised form of his name, Yesu. It later became Jesu, and then "Jesus" supposedly from Ieusus/Iesous. The original Greek mss of the Gospels however have Ieusu/Iesou and not with the added "s." As Yeshua was a Galilean the "a" at the end of his name was not pronounced.)

The fact is our personal salvation and the salvation of our world was worked out in eternity, long before the creation of this small galaxy and particularly minor solar system. Christ has been a Saviour from eternity. We have seen in this present work that "evil" as well as "good" comes forth from the mind of the Creative Intelligence we call "God." This is not to say that our God is an evil God. Not by any means! God is very much a good God, but he is also very much above our concepts of what we would consider "right" and "wrong." God is above all the transcendent One. Indeed, we have seen that evil as well as good was available in the Garden of Eden at the very beginning of man's story (history). Man was created, not perfect, but innocent -- as the Hebrew recognises "very good." Nevertheless, man sinned and brought upon himself a loss of cognisance as to his proper relationship with the LORD and his own identity as the Image or Reflection of the Divine God.

Man's separation from Deity was essentially a matter of perception.

Traditionally the Christian life is a progressive unfolding (in our personal recognition) of our true relationship with the LORD (but only through and in Messiah) and the dawning (again, in our personal recognition) of our authentic identity as the Image of the Divine God (again, only in Messiah). In other words the Christian life is one of constant change in overcoming erroneous perceptions.

When men failed to appreciate the Jewish thoughtforms in the Word of God -- [as a prime example, R.B. Kuiper (d.1966) taught theology at Westminster Theological Seminary for many years and served Calvin Theological Seminary as its President for seven. A prolific writer, he displayed an astonishing bias against the idea of the introduction of the doctrine of a universal salvation into the Church by the apostle Paul. Rather, he viewed the doctrine as entering the sanctity of the Church directly from paganism. See his For Whom Did Christ Die? A Study of the Divine Design of the Atonement, 1959, 11] -- and began to turn more to pagan Hellenistic notions and ideas than to the Lord God, they could not accept the simple plain verdict of the Scripture, or to the admission by God himself, the he authored evil (Isaiah 45.7). God is the Creator of evil. God is the Creator of all things. This is the unequivocal position of the Holy Bible (no matter which version or translation one possesses). On this point the Scripture does not waver. "For by him," writes Paul, "were all things created, that are in heaven, that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers. All things were created by him, and for him: and he is before all things, and by him all things consist" (Colossians 1.16,17). "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made," stated John (John 1.3). "I form the light and create darkness: I make peace and I create evil: I the Lord do all these things" (Isaiah 45.7).

As difficult as this sometimes is to accept, or to comprehend, Satan did not wreck the plan of God. What we see about us is the plan of God, this design of redemption. Adam did not fall in Eden. Adam was pushed. God knew all about sin prior to Adam and Eve's transgression in the garden. God knew about it "before the foundation of the world." For, he had already planned redemption from sin before sin even existed, through Yeshua the Messiah -- a Saviour from eternity (2 Timothy 1.9; 1 Peter 1.20).

But men did not want to associate God in any way with sin and evil. Therefore, instead of accepting by faith the inspired biblical revelation they set up a system of dualism. They created, in their wild imaginative speculation, a second god in the form of a beautiful sinless archangel called "Lucifer" and they connected him with Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14. They knew what was written in John's Apocalypse about a fall of Satan from heaven which was to occur at the end of this present age just prior to the second Advent of the Mashiach (Revelation 12) and they wrested texts, distorted the sacred Word, and deliberately lied about the holy Scripture in order to establish a totally new doctrine about a second creator in opposition to the Lord God. This perfect angel was made to appreciate himself a little too much, fill himself with contemptuous pride, convince fully one third of all the angels of God to follow him in his rebellion, war against heaven, fall from the position he held as God's protective covering, and become a dragon called Satan.

The Scripture cannot be made to endorse this fable, as fascinating as it appears to be.

Before we actually turn to the Apocalypse, consider the words of Yeshua pertaining to an incident involving the Dark Lord during his earthly ministry. Yeshua's personal active ministry to the Jewish people included the professional practice, science and art of exorcism. It was at one stage of this ministry that Our Lord sent out seventy disciples (or, as some early manuscripts state, seventy-two) into the regions where he was preparing to go, as heralds or evangelists to prepare the way before him (Luke 10.1). Who these seventy men were we have absolutely no idea, although they may have been a type of Sanhedrin of the Yeshua Party, for he saw himself as the New Israel. Be this as it may, on their return journey they exclaim with great enthusiasm that "even the demons are subject to us through your Name" (Luke 10.17). Now what was the response by Yeshua to their excited report? The mystical Lord replies: "I beheld Satan as lightning fall from the heavens" (Luke 10.18).

In its context Yeshua is replying to the enthusiastic response of his 70 disciples who have discovered the great power of faith, and the attitude of submission of the demonic realm to the Name of Yeshua! And submit they did! With little doubt Satan ("the Adversary"), who occupied a position (however exalted) of Chief Lackey in the vicinity of God's awesome Kingdom authority, had felt or experienced some form of negative movement, waver, tremble or disturbance in the unified field. He rapidly exited heaven and fell to earth to investigate the trauma that had occurred. It was at the time of mass exorcisms that Yeshua admitted that he saw Satan fall from heaven to earth. This was an event that was concurrent with the exercising of new authority within Satan's realm. In no way can this occurrence be construed to relate to an event that had supposedly happened before the foundation of the world involving some mythical angelic power called "Lucifer."

There is no way we can justifiably link this momentous event with the passage in Isaiah 14, Ezekiel 28 or Revelation 12 for that matter, though many theologians and preachers attempt to do so. The context demands that the incident was contemporary with the plunder of Satan's kingdom by the seventy disciples of Yeshua. Indeed, in a word,  Satan was losing control of his dominion. And, just a few verses before, mention is made of the city of Capernaum which (it is plainly said) considered that it was "exalted to heaven" yet it would be "thrust down to hell [Hades/Sheol]" (Luke 10.15). The city would fall from its prominent and exalted position. So also in the observation of Yeshua concerning the Devil (slanderer). Satan's power was being broken through the evangelistic ministry of the Messiah's disciples. According to no less an authority in NT matters, Godet translates verse 18 as "While you were expelling the subordinates, I was beholding the Master fall" (F. Godet, Commentary on the Gospel of St Luke, 1879). The celebrated translator Richard Weymouth comments, "The thought is not that of Milton's rebel angel ("hurled headlong flaming from the ethereal sky"), banished forever from the abode of bliss but, rather, brought down low from the place of his pride and power" (R. Francis Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech, 1929, 166).

It is significant that the prophets Jeremiah, Zechariah, Amos, Ezekiel and even Malachi (who lived well after the time of the prophet Isaiah and who would have been very well acquainted with his writings and the oral traditions handed down from his time) never once made a mention of the fall of some "Lucifer" who had become the Devil! This is strange indeed if Isaiah had been the prophet whom God had bequeathed some important information. But on Lucifer's fall the prophets (all of them) are particularly silent. Certainly this idea was never once mentioned by Our Lord nor by his very elect apostles. Comments Weston Fields, "This interpretation of Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28, which makes these passages refer to the fall of Satan, has not been generally held during church history [except in our own time]. The connection of Isaiah 14 with Satan was begun by Tertullian [d. circa 230 C.E.] and continued by Origen [d. circa 254 C.E.]" (Weston Fields, Unformed and Unfilled, 1976, 142).

According to Fields, then, the Carthaginian Canaanite "Father" Tertullian was the first Christian to make such a connection between Nebuchadnezzar of Isaiah 14 and some angel called Lucifer. This idea found its way into Jerome's Latin translation of the Bible, and from there into the Authorised Version of 1611. A few short years thereafter the blind Milton dramatised the fall of Lucifer in his "Paradise Lost." Since the 19th century this view has been popularised by the founder of Seventh-day Adventism, Ellen G. White, and echoed throughout churchianity by most of its popular leaders.

But as Revelation 12 shows, when Satan falls from heaven he is no perfect angel termed Lucifer. In no way! For he is revealed as a dragon.

"There was war in the heavens: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in the heavens. And the great dragon was cast out, that ancient serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, who deceives the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him" (Revelation 12.7-10).

Now please note that some sweet and perfect angel called Lucifer who was the heavenly choirmaster and song-leader of popular Fundamentalist theology is not ever mentioned. No, not once. Rather it is made clear that the fall from the heavens involves one "Satan," the "Devil," who is a "dragon," (and is even called a "great" dragon) and a "serpent." But nowhere do we get the picture of a previously perfect angel with the name of Lucifer falling from Grace due to pride in his own immaculate beauty. This is nothing more than a reading into the text of something that is absolutely unwarranted.

Actually, John is writing prophetically. He is decidedly not recording historical events that occurred before the creation of our planet. A close examination of the text shows, in the previous verse, that Satan is the accuser of the brethren "who accused them before our God day and night." This by itself ought to be enough proof that the time period under question cannot be prior to the creation of man -- after all, before the creation of Adam and Eve there were no brethren around to accuse. But here the dragon is in heavenly conflict with "Michael." It is Michael and his angels, not the Messiah, who launch an attack against the Dark Lord in the heavens in this cosmic prelude to the eschatological consummation (R.H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, 1977, 241).

According to the angel who communicated with the prophet Daniel, Michael is labelled "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10.13) and is described by the apostle Judah (often called by the anglicised "Jude") as the archangel who refused to make a slanderous accusation against Satan in his dispute over the body of Moses (Jude 9). According to Jewish tradition Michael is the chief of the seven archangels (J.A. Seiss, The Apocalypse, 1900, 306). A celestial being, his military patronage is attested to in literature of the intertestamental period (Jubilees 1.29; 2.1; Eth.Enoch 20.5; Test.Levi 5.6) and his designation as protector of Israel is on the shields of the apocalyptic Sons of Light in Qumran Scriptures (1QM 9.14-16). Michael is revealed to have a role as intercessor (Test.Daniel 6.2; Talmud Yoma 37a; Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 18.3; Exodus 3.2; 12.29) and it was held by the Jews that he also served God as the recording angel (Asc.Isaiah 9.22-23). As such he was the intermediary between God and Moses at Sinai (Jubilees 1.27; 22.1; Asc.Isaiah 11.21; Targum on Exodus 24.1). His argument with Satan over the corpse of Moses, mentioned in passing by Judah the Lord's brother, is based on a reference found (according to Origen)  in the Assumption of Moses. Later rabbinical sources are well aware of this story and we should accept it as authentic although it is absent from our extant copies (Deut.Rabbah 10.11). Nonetheless, from other references it is established that to Michael was given the commission of disposing of the body of Moses (Targum of Jonathan on Deuteronomy 34.6). And Satan attempted to stop him. It is interesting that the angels have names, Gabriel, Michael, etc. Even God has a name, Yehoveh. But Satan does not have a name but is only known by descriptive terms, titles and appellations. The apostle Peter was once referred to in the negative as a Satan by none other than Mashiach himself (Matthew 16.22,23). In the Talmud Rabbi Simon bar Lakish said: "Satan and the evil impulse and the angel of death are one" (Bab.B. 16a).

Having said all this, there is another factor associated with Satan in this 12th chapter of Revelation that needs to be noted. We have already referred to the mass exorcisms conducted by the seventy disciples of Yeshua during his earthly ministry. It is recognised by all astute Christian scholars that at the time of Yeshua there was intense demonic activity, perhaps more concentrated during the Third, Fourth and Fifth Procuratorship of Judaea than at any other time in the religious history of the planet. Certainly such a flurry of demonic ascendancy in that particular region of the earth has never been equalled or surpassed before or after the days of Yeshua. There is a reason for this accurate observation. The apostle John informs us that at the very time of the birth of Yeshua (taking Professor Ernest Martin's view of 3/2 B.C.E. according to his reckoning in E.L. Martin, The Star That Astonished the World, 1991) "there appeared another wonder in the heavens; and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of the heavens and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born" (Revelation 12.1-4).

It is Satan himself who casts fully one-third of the heavenly angels into the geographical area of Judaea during the Second Temple period in order to devour the incarnate God as soon as Miriam (Mary) completed her labour in bringing forth the prophesied Seed of the Woman of the promise to Eve in Genesis. This event is not to be confused with the launching of Michael's technology against Satan and his angels further on in the same chapter. This is a different event altogether as a simple perusal will reveal, despite what many popular writers say to the contrary. The Scripture must be allowed to assert its own meaning, and we should be reverencing what it says rather than enthusiastically imposing our traditional concepts onto the sacred text. These latter cosmic hostilities are eschatological, occurring right at the very end of human history. It is written of the Devil, that as a result of this expulsion from the heavens, that he has "great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time" (Revelation 12.12). This could not have occurred billions of years into the past.

In Eden Adam ate the forbidden fruit. Adam immediately experienced a world of opposites. He forgot who he was. He cluttered his divine intuition with elements of panic, fear, shock, embarrassment. He experienced a finitude as alienation, and guilt as despair over which he had no control. He seemed beyond God, caught in a web of opposites: life and death, good and evil, light and darkness, the self and the not-self, the knower and the known, yin and yang, black and white, the organism and its environment, the solid and the space, the useful and the useless, love and hate, randomness and order, multiplicity and unity, freedom and determinism. He was fallen man with a knowledge of ultimate dualism. And yet, in that fall, he had become as a god (Genesis 3.22 cf John 10.34). The Lord admitted to the Wisdom of the ancient Serpent, "Now the man has become as one of us knowing good and evil" (Genesis 3.22). It is only in man's fall that he can begin, through Mashiach, the inner journey toward spiritual fulfilment. There is no other way for man to attain his salvation except through his fall. There is no other way for man, except in participating in the fall, for him to understand, comprehend and appreciate the nature of Divine Being.

God is absolutely sovereign. He is not independent of his creation. It is held together by him. In saying this, he is not bound or limited by the material universe. The universe, or multiverse, is the thought of God. He is the universe, but is also beyond its edge of light. As the source of life he has Life inherent in himself. There is no conceivable way that the Transcendent God could be seen to be ambitious or self-seeking. God is complete, perfect and self-subsistent. There is only one way for the Creator God to use his awesome power. And that is in creative abdication. Now some may object to this evaluation. It is their right to do so. But how can God use his power in a personal plus situation? How do we put a plus to an already existing perfection? How do you add to perfection? We might live in a world where our clothes might appear to be made "whiter than white" by using this laundry detergent or that bleach. But its nothing more than illusion. God's power, if it is to go anywhere, must go to the minus side of voluntary self-renunciation. God is a Creator God. More than this, God is a Creative God. He ever and always creates. He not only continually creates (for he is eternally the Alpha and eternally the Omega) but he creates cyclically. It is his nature to do so. The Gospel of Christ is the Gospel of liberty and freedom, at least this is the position Paul takes in his letter to the Galatians. But God in liberty and freedom empties his power and energy into that which he materialises out of himself in ongoing creative activity. So in creating the universe, and to that extent emptying himself, God lets the intelligent creatures that he has brought forth ultimately go free. This is his Nature. And he will not be but what he is. Reflecting then on this principle, we must be prepared to put the question of the origin of the Dark Lord and the question of his ultimate fate.  

SATAN NEVER FELL
The fact is, Satan never fell. Satan is not about to fall. If he fell in the past, or will fall in the future, where is the evidence? Even Our Lord's observation in the Lukan account of the evangelism of the seventy entailed a hurried exit from the heavens by the Dark Lord, and not exactly a "fall." For a fall necessarily implies a previous good standing. And from the record of the Hebrew Scriptures Satan has never had a previous good existence. Yeshua made it clear when he said that Satan was a murderer from the beginning (John 8.44). As long as the Adversary was an adversary he was a sinner. If words mean anything, sin began when Satan began. The unequivocal statement from John is that the Adversary "is sinning from the beginning" (1 John 3.8 Greek). Now this reveals that in God's sovereignty there was a need to create, in the order of things pertaining relationally to God's plan, purpose and intent for humankind a negative force which would work toward the creative development of character in man. For, without the Devil, there would have been no temptation in Eden. Without the Devil there would be no guarantee of the need of the cross. Without the Devil there could hardly be estrangement between man and God. All through the pages of the Bible the Dark Lord is seen to faithfully display absolute and implicit obedience to his Creator, God. Indeed it could be argued that Satan would be disobeying his Lord if he did not sin and cause others to transgress. Without sinners there would be no forgiveness, no mercy. There would be an absence of Grace. There would be no possibility of an ultimate reconciliation of the universe, in which entropy dwells (including Satan), to the Creator of All.

It is clear that the plan of God is ever a plan of redemption, of salvation. For humankind there is no other plan. The plan of God is nothing more than a game the Lord is playing. We Christians are so serious about this game. Of course, we need to be sober. And we need to play this game to win. But to relieve the stresses of the game (and what a game it is!) and to allow us to express God's basic nature he has freely given us his Holy Spirit of comfort, joy, gladness in the knowledge of the certainty of our salvation. It is a salvation that is both present and future. The plan of salvation is God's dream and we are all participants in it. We are all just the Lord's thoughtforms. Even the Dark Lord. It is a fact that the Devil is a creature without real choice. He actually has no freedom of will. He must obey his Lord God in creating havoc, tragedy, and despair. He cannot help but be ice-cold and treacherous, evil and malignant. He is the true Victim of God. He is the angel of death. As the embodiment of death, sin and evil Satan must eventually and naturally be destroyed and that by LOVE. We are told the "Lake of fire" is prepared for the Devil and his angels (Matthew 25.41). We are told the Devil will be cast into that Lake of fire (Revelation 20.10). We are told the demonic realm is aware of a time coming when it will be subject to "torment" from a Christ of love (Matthew 8.29). But we also know that all of the material and spiritual creation will return from whence it came (Romans 11.36; 1 Corinthians 15.24-28; Colossians 1.16,17,20; Philippians 2.9-11; Ephesians 1.9-11,19-23).

Satan the Devil who hates authentic righteousness, and loves all the negative things that hurt and destroy human beings, will one day be neutralised in torments until a change occurs in his nature and that to the immense glory of God. Due to a woeful mistranslation this truth of God has been hidden from our appreciation. "And the Devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone... and shall be tormented day and night for the aeons of the aeons" (Revelation 20.10).

It is always imperative that we be immersed in Jewish thoughtform when we open the Bible, as Gentiles have long misread and perverted the language of the authors, who were Jewish (except for Luke, and even here he was probably a convert to one of the many sects of Second Temple Judaism. It is highly unlikely that Paul would have entertained a Gentile physician, and Luke was a physician!). As an aside Luke recorded the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus in his Gospel. Most Christians accept that the rich man ended up in Gehenna because of the mention of fires and torment. Nothing could be further from the truth of the matter!

Certainly, "forever and forever" in most Bibles is in error! His torment is for the aeons of the aeons, not endlessly. For some believers this admission may not be accepted too enthusiastically, and this attitude is understandable. Nevertheless a change in the nature of the Dark Lord seems to have the approbation of the Scripture and we all need to be open to God's revelation. On this very point notice that the period of Satan's torment is exactly identical to the length of the reign of Yeshua the Messiah. After Our Lord has abolished all enmity from this universe, he himself abdicates and delivers his Messianic kingdom up to his Father, "that God may be all and in all" (1 Corinthians 15.20-28). His Messianic reign lasts only "for the aeons of the aeons" (Revelation 11.15 Greek). This is exactly the time period of the duration of Satan's torment. And there is absolutely no doubt in this lecturer's mind that this knowledge is something the malignant power of evil wants the world to remain in ignorance concerning. Just as he has wanted the world to believe the mythology that he, Satan, is "the morning star" or "star of the dawn" of Isaiah 14 so Yeshua replies with all authority and power, "I Yeshua have sent my angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright and morning star" (Revelation 22.16 cf 2.28).

If God as Creative Intelligence is able to convert Satan's nature, how much more is God the Father willing to do for each of us, his "Firstfruits"?

Jewish theologian Kohler writes that in the final analysis, "There is [really] no evil before God, since a good purpose is served even by that which appears bad. In the life of the human body pleasure and pain, the impetus to life and its restraint and inhibition form a necessary contrast, making for health; so, in the moral order of the universe, each being who battles with evil receives new strength for the unfolding of the good. The principle of holiness... transforms and ennobles every evil" (K. Kohler, Jewish Theology, 1923, 176).

Our Lord is a God of Grace. He is equally a God of love. If God is love, and he is, then he can be only the Ground of All Being (which includes the existence of evil) only in his self-giving love. It was in his supreme self-giving love that God emptied himself into his material creation, thus bringing it into a physical form of existence, and by virtue of this materialisation of the energy of God the creation (or if you will, the creature itself) "fell." This "fall" consists of an existence that is other than spirit. And the quest of man is ever to return to the original state of perfection in spirit. Once we, by the Grace of God, grasp this understanding everything will "fall" into perspective that will enable us to throw off all that hinders us, or holds us back, from our tireless race to return to Deity (Hebrews 12.1,2).

However we may wish to view it, Satan had to originally have his origin in the divine mind and will of the sovereign Creator, along with the concepts of sin and evil.

When the Lord brought forth the Devil, the evil one, in a form of material creation (for Satan is not Spirit as God is spirit) God had formed, with him, a fundamental partnership.

We cannot have it both ways. Satan is our enemy, but he is God's instrument. The angel of destruction. The angel of death. The angel of collaboration. The servant of the Lord. For, even God's spittle is divine spittle. Satan may appear to be God's opposite, but he is God's loyal servant nonetheless.

Explicit opposition conceals implicit unity.

QUESTIONS & ANALYSIS OF LECTURE NINE

The Messianic Rebbe wrote: "It is always imperative that we be immersed in Jewish thoughtform when we open the Bible, as Gentiles have long misread and perverted the language of the authors, who were Jewish (except for Luke, and even here he was probably a convert to one of the many sects of Second Temple Judaism. It is highly unlikely that Paul would have entertained a Gentile physician, and Luke was a physician!). As an aside Luke recorded the parable of The Rich Man and Lazarus in his Gospel. Most Christians accept that the rich man ended up in Gehenna because of the mention of fires and torment. Nothing could be further from the truth of the matter!"

There is so much in the way of revelation, and enormous lessons to be learned by us all, in a study of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Treasures abound in the parables of Yeshua. The great pity is that most Christian commentators are blissfully unaware of the Jewish thoughtform which forms the essential bedrock for understanding the full implications of what Yeshua was communicating in those same teachings. His words and teaching are grossly ignored, or misunderstood, in Gentile circles of faith. Without a proper grasp of the Jewish thoughtforms of the age in which Yeshua walked this earth we can be led, and often are, into the most ludicrous interpretations of the Word of God.

An analysis of the Gospels reveals that Yeshua the Messiah had more to say on the subject of "hell" than anyone else in the entire Bible. He does not want any of his creations to ever "go there." So he gives humankind repeated warnings about such a terrifying experience. But misunderstandings occur, of course, and this can be easily illustrated by accessing current Christian literature, books, tapes and tracts on the subject of "Lazarus and the Rich Man" and yet, surprisingly, hell has nothing to do with this parable.

In the story of Lazarus, Messiah depicts a societal reject as being in abject despair, living in impoverished conditions and afflicted with an immune deficiency that was so horrendous that dogs came to lick his sores. I recently fell onto my knees on a driveway which was very slippery and scraped and damaged an already afflicted and painful left knee (I had previously torn the meniscus which I had also previously done to my right knee) -- blood everywhere and, oh! how it stung; I was sore for over two weeks -- and my American Red-nosed Pit Bull insisted on licking it much to my personal disgust. Poor "Pepper," she was only doing something that was entirely natural to her, but alien to me. But dogs will be dogs!

The time eventually came when Lazarus died and was carried by angels into Abraham's embrace. This was a dimension of Sheol called Paradise (the place of the righteous dead). Now, when Lazarus was alive he was located outside the home of a very rich man who wore the finest clothes money could buy, and Yeshua tells us he "fared sumptuously every day." Although he had to pass Lazarus each time he left his home, the rich man offered the afflicted one absolutely no consideration whatsoever, and treated him and his condition with utter contempt.

Well, ultimately the rich man died too.

But, instead of the expected embrace of Abraham when he entered Sheol, he found himself in a frightful place surrounded with flames. From the midst of those awful flames he cries out to Abraham to send Lazarus to him with just one drop of water in order to cool his tongue. Had this been me, I think I would have called out for a fire hose or at least a few buckets of water. But there is meaning to this matter of a "drop of water on the tongue." It is missed by Gentile Christians who, if they knew to what he was referring, would think even Yeshua was discussing something "frightfully demonic." Perhaps I will discuss that "drop of water" sometime in the future.

At this point in Yeshua's story Abraham replies that he had enjoyed all the good things of this life during the period that the street urchin, Lazarus, had been denied such pleasures. Now, of course, the roles have been reversed.

So the rich man begs Abraham to at least inform his five brothers about his terrible situation so that they will not have to undergo the appalling sufferings that he is experiencing. Abraham then reminds the rich man that they have Moses and the prophets and therefore they should listen to them. The rich man responds negatively. They won't believe the Scriptures but they would if someone were to rise from the dead and warn them. Abraham retorts: "If they won't listen to Moses or the prophets they won't be convinced even if one should rise from the dead!"

Interestingly enough, Christians today won't listen to Moses either, and as a result have accepted the most damnable of heresies in relation to the Saviour. They have opted for ancient myths that surround the person of Nimrod (Tammuz) -- the pagan Saviour of the ancient world -- and they have applied these same myths to Yeshua, the Jewish Messiah.

So here in the Lukan parable the story concludes as Father Abraham denies the rich man's request for Lazarus to return from the dead to warn his five brothers. And isn't this exactly what happened, in the narrative as recorded by the apostle John? For, Lazarus was called back to life by Yeshua and still nobody believed! In fact, the raising of Lazarus resulted, if we are to believe John, not in conversions from the five major sects of Judaism, but in the crucifixion itself (John 11.46ff). True, some Jews as a result of the miracle for a time "believed on him" but they did not "believe in him." As far as biblical terminology is concerned, there is a kingdom of difference between the two phrases.

It is intriguing just how many volumes have been penned on this story from the mouth of Our Lord, and they all recognise that the illustration is a parable. They freely admit that such is the case. They emphasise the parabolic nature of the story but fail to appreciate that Yeshua is using the popular imagery and the symbolism of an extant Judaism!

As such, the Messiah is giving credence to the rich tapestry-truth which was held in esteem by the Pharisees who sat in the teaching seat of Moses (Matthew 23.2).

Most believers see the events portrayed in this parable as relating to hell, and they leap to the conclusion that Yeshua is speaking of the last day when all humankind will awake at the final trumpet blast and realise the awful presence of a fiery judgment. Thus the mortal rich man lifts up his eyes in the grave and sees the approaching flames of hell. Mentally tormented as the fires of doom descend, he sees Lazarus happily experiencing the salvation promised to all of Abraham's true, spiritual seed.

But this is not what Yeshua is teaching. No scene of end-time judgment is anywhere under discussion in the parable. The Great White Throne of Messiah's judgment is nowhere to be seen. The rich man has no awareness of the proximity of God or Messiah, neither do they even get a mention. He seems totally unaware that he has previously stood before the judgment seat of the Lord to receive that dreadful pronouncement, "Depart from me you self-cursed into eternal fire!" None of this is evident.

The final judgment of God is not under discussion in this parable, nor is it in the future at the coming of Messiah and the resurrection of the dead at the last trump. While living the rich man was surrounded by his five brothers and the story of Sheol takes place while they are still alive and well (Luke 16.27,28). If people grasped the Jewish idea of Sheol (or Hades) all would drop into a proper perspective. Yeshua is describing what is called "the Intermediate State" of the spirit of man after death (but BEFORE the Judgment Day of God). Hell is not the point of the parable; Yeshua is talking about Sheol, the place of the dead.

Yeshua gave this parable for the Pharisees who were listening to his teaching. Yeshua pictures the spiritual consequences that karmically follow in an automatic way from the inordinate use of wealth during this life and -- to be fair -- karma can be good or it can be bad depending on the attitudes behind the activities in which we engage. On a daily basis we are all experiencing "karma" -- in Paul's words "we reap what we sow" either for good or for evil.

The rich man in the parable is clothed with beautiful, expensive raiment (called "fine linen") and covered lavishly with the colour purple. This was the colour that decorated the Royal Jewish Priesthood. The Pharisees (and the Sadducees) looked down upon the common poor Jew and demanded the poor be positioned like that of Lazarus, outside with the dogs (Gentiles) -- just as the Prodigal Son was cast far away with the swine.

In the thinking of the religious classes, the poor were the poor because they were under a curse for disobeying God's perfect law. The destitute and underprivileged possessed little more than the ceremonially unclean alien, and it was to such people that Our Lord came to reclaim them as His own. Certainly, the rich man wore elegant purple, the very symbol of kingship. The Davidic or Messianic Kingdom did belong to him. And remember, he wore "fine linen." This was the symbol of Priesthood. Both God's ordained priests and the Temple equally belonged to him. The Messiah also informs us that Abraham was the rich man's "father" (Luke 16.24) so it appears he was an actual son of Abraham.

However, how does Abraham refer to this once-rich man? He calls him his "son" (Luke 16.25)!

This sonship made the rich man the legal possessor of Abraham's inheritance. And as we have seen in Messiah's parable the royal and spiritual blessings were indeed in his control. One could hardly avoid the evident inference Messiah was making. After all, the tribe which ultimately came into power and control of the kingdom of Israel and the priesthood was Judah. And the Jews most assuredly became the sole representatives of all the Abrahamic blessings (let alone those of Moses). Again, the rich man had five brothers (Luke 16.28). Judah also had "five brothers."

"And Leah said... now will my husband dwell with me, because I have born him six sons" (Genesis 30.20).

"The sons of Leah; Reuben (1), Jacob's first born, and Simeon (2), and Levi (3), and Judah, and Issachar (4), and Zebulun (5)" (Genesis 35.23). So both the rich man and Judah had "five brothers." And the
"five brothers" in the parable had "Moses and the prophets" in their midst (Luke 16.29). The Jewish people possessed "the oracles of God" (Romans 3.1,2).

On the other hand Lazarus was a derelict cripple. He could not walk. His condition was terminal, and his sores were beyond medical help. The local dogs took advantage of his situation and came to Lazarus to lick his running putrefaction. Certainly this would not have helped his ailing state, and it would have made his circumstances worse. Dogs, like Lazarus himself, were considered unclean (Matthew 7.6; 2 Peter 2.22; Philippians 3.2).

One fact that is often overlooked by expositors of this Lukan parable is that the rich man could hardly have failed to notice poor Lazarus each and every time he went in or out of his gateway, for that is where the dying beggar was to be continually found (Luke 16.20). The rich man thus had ample opportunity to show real outgoing concern, if not pity, toward his affliction.

We know from the Gospels that these low life religious hypocrites would make long winded prayers for widows, after gluttonously devouring the widows property. The rich man lived only for himself. This parable given by Yeshua could very well be applicable to certain ministers of churchianity today! The principle certainly applies.

The parable is rich in meaning.

THUS CONCLUDES LECTURE NINE