The Path of Truth Forum

I’ve been meaning to sharing this after reading your thoughts that this parable is a pagan corruption. Let it not be so. It comes as the last parable of a series that exposed the Pharisees and prophecied judgement. The same judgement that was repeated in many parables.

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

The parable of lazarus is a beautiful parable combining many different elements throughout the bible.
I’d started to write my own price on it but alas it has already been written so I will refer to the link.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Lazarus-byHuie.htm

God bless.

Thank you, Simon! I'd like to hear from several others here, not in sycophancy or partisanship, but in love for the Truth. Could it not be that I'm wrong about what I've believed about this parable? Anybody can be wrong, including me. Huie's understanding and explanation are obviously compelling.

Certainly, the way the parable has been interpreted and understood has been atrocious. It certainly seems to have lent itself to great error, but if people have "wrested the Scriptures to their own destruction," who can fault that which they wrest?

Let's not vote for Victor or TPOT but for the Truth, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Just to add another connection in this parable.

Eliezer was Abraham’s servant who was outside the gate in regards to bloodline and was to get inheritance before god changed it.

After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying: ‘Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield, thy reward shall be exceeding great.’ And Abram said: ‘O Lord GOD, what wilt Thou give me, seeing I go hence childless, and he that shall be possessor of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?’

Genesis 15:1-2

Hi Simon, I'd like to ask a couple of questions regarding the parable you bring up, and I know you sent us a link that offers some explanation, but I believe it would be good to hear your specific insight and understanding, if you're willing.

So Lazarus was a beggar and there was a rich man. We get 3 verses of preamble, and then they both die. Lazarus goes to 'heaven' and the rich man goes to 'hell.'

Now I hear your statement that there is a theme running here in the same chapter, revolving around money, but, to me, I don't see that we get any explanation or description of either person's character.

In the previous parables, there is a description of why the "lovers of money" and the "unfaithful managers" receive the punishment, if you want to call it that, that they do.

However, here, other than the rich man potentially being uncharitable, there's no explicit understanding or description of what each man's character was made of. It doesn't even say that either was a believer or unbeliever, and faith is the primary indicator of our state in salvation.

So what can we conclude? Is there virtue in being poor? Is there vice in being rich?

I see plenty of homeless people and beggars in my urban area, but I would hardly say many of them virtuous in the fact that they are poor. Many explicitly beg for money for marijuana, others wander around in a drunken or drugged state, and others harass people for various if not unintelligible reasons.

Now I don't condemn these people, but they are hardly examples of believers. Maybe Lazarus was a believer, and maybe he had virtue, and maybe the Lord gave him to be impoverished, as the Lord can do (He can do anything for His reasons). But the Scriptures don't generally deal in vague notions and suggestions, especially not in matters concerning Heaven and Hell.

Your quote of Scripture is certainly a description of Heaven and Hell. But I don't see that it suggests an eternal, never-ending state for those thrown to the outer darkness.

Now the parable of Lazarus and the rich man doesn't explicitly state that hell is eternal, but it does suggest that the two shall never twain:

Luke 16:26 MKJV
(26)  And besides all this, there is a great chasm fixed between you and us; so that they desiring to pass from here to you cannot, nor can they pass over to us from there.

I would say from my own witness of the nature of God and His plan for Heaven and Hell and the state of those in them, this simply isn't true.

Repentance is possible in the afterlife. The Lord says He will reconcile all things to Himself. More importantly, He says that even Hell and death shall be ended and brought under Him:

Isaiah 25:8 MKJV
(8)  He will swallow up death in victory; and the LORD will wipe away tears from all faces. And He shall take away from all the earth the rebuke of His people. For the LORD has spoken.

1 Corinthians 15:24-29 MKJV
(24)  then is the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God, even the Father; when He makes to cease all rule and all authority and power.
(25)  for it is right for Him to reign until He has put all the enemies under His feet.
(26)  The last enemy made to cease is death.
(27)  For He put all things under His feet. But when He says that all things have been put under His feet, it is plain that it excepts Him who has put all things under Him.
(28)  But when all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subject to Him who has subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all things in all.
(29)  Otherwise, what will they do, those being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not at all raised, why indeed are they baptized on behalf of the dead?

Revelation 21:4-5 MKJV
(4)  And God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. And there will be no more death, nor mourning, nor crying out, nor will there be any more pain; for the first things passed away.
(5)  And He sitting on the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And He said to me, Write, for these words are true and faithful.

Revelation 20:14 MKJV
(14)  And death and hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the second death.

Now I take that last verse to mean that eventually death and Hell both will be burned away and made to cease. Death and Hell will die too. They will have served their purpose in punishing/correcting those in sin, and now the Lord will purge them of their contents (souls like the rich man who were in them), receiving only the refined gold left in them.

So what do you say, Simon? What is your take on the Reconciliation of All Things? Do you believe that everyone will eventually "reach Heaven?" Or do you believe in eternal hell?

What do you make of the noticeable difference between the descriptions and explanations of the characters in the parable? Why do you think we weren't given any information on their virtue or lack thereof, any information on their spiritual state?

What do you make of the poor and the rich today? Do you think all poor are saved and rich condemned?

The message of the parable certainly suggests that poverty can be a virtue and wealth a vice. The only thing we hear from Abraham (why not the Lord?) is that the rich man had nice things on earth, and that's why he's condemned. Is that justice?

I see you sent us a tentmaker article as your explanation, but if you don't mind, I believe we'd all like to hear your answers to the questions I've asked and your explanation and understanding of the parable.

If you are correct in your interpretation, it could be quite profitable and edifying to all of us here. I believe that is the duty of believers among their brethren: to share the knowledge, wisdom, and revelation from God with one another.

Simon, not arguing; just asking a couple of light questions for the moment: According to Huie, did Lazarus represent a dog (Gentile?) and if so, how is it that dogs licked his sores? I'm a bit confused on that point. Who did he represent and who did the dogs represent?

On your second post, how was Eliezer, a faithful and well-cared for servant of Abraham represented as a poor beggar, "whose sores dogs licked"? What is the meaning and purpose of your connecting Lazarus to Eliezer, other than a similarity in the name? (I should tell you I've red another document paralleling the Abraham/Eliezer/Isaac account to this parable.)

Excuse me for not understanding this. Also, according to the parable, Lazarus received the "inheritance," whereas Eliezer did not, though I expect he remained faithful to Abraham and if so, I'm sure he was well taken care of to his end. Who, then, would the rich man have been in Abraham's story? Who would the dogs have been? Lots of what might be perceived as silly questions, but I'm curious as to whether you have answers.

I look forward to hearing from Martin VanPopta, Ronnie Tanner, Brandon LaBerteaux and others on this. God grant grace and wisdom to all.

Your first point on the dogs and sores. These have spiritual meanings.

Matthew 15:26-27 New International Version (NIV)

26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”

27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

Lazerus is of the gentile nations. The dogs are other gentiles.
The sores are spiritual wounds from living without the spiritual gifts and truths. They give constant pain.
A dog licks wounds to help relieve the pain.
The fact that other gentiles are licking his wounds to help his pain is what happens in this world all the time.

“Kisses from an enemy is deceitful” but helps momentarily. Which means there needs to be constant licking.


1 John 1:8 English Standard Version (ESV)

8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Don’t we comfort each other with lies in the world for our sins and the pain they bring?

Fame is good.
Money and celebrity should be sought after.
Sexual perversion won’t cause harm.
Liberal values are humain.
Socialism is good.
Equality is good.
Feelings matter over fact.
Rebuke is hateful, love is all that matters.
Etc.

The point of using eleizer who was Abraham’s servant (gentile) was to point out that inheritance that was passed down through Israel’s bloodline was about to be reversed.

Brandon most of your questions are answered in the link.

I believe in universal salvation but only through coming to faith in Jesus/yeshua.
Which all will do eventually as we pass through gods refining fire of judgement.

Hi,

I was thinking on this and I would say Huie's interpretation is the most cogent one I've read, something I could even agree with, yet some if not many questions arise.

Let’s say that the rich man represents a Jew, a Pharisee, and Lazarus a Gentile, as Huie suggests, and that wealth means their spiritual wealth. So that’s for the first verses.

21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

This “desiring to be fed” could be an indication of faith, as with the woman in Matthew 15:24-28:

(24) He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
(25) But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”
(26) And he answered, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
(27) She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”
(28) Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

I too wonder about the meaning of the dogs licking the sores? Could be other Gentiles trying to console him, but how would it relate to the context?

Continuing:

22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Now, they don't die literally, as it couldn't really be soundly explained considering the Lord's ways. I believe this is also what Simon Charles referred to with the Scripture he posted:

NLT puts Matthew 8:12 like this:
"And I tell you this, that many Gentiles will come from all over the world--from east and west--and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the feast in the Kingdom of Heaven. But many Israelites--those for whom the Kingdom was prepared--will be thrown into outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

WNT puts it, “while the natural heirs of the Kingdom..”

Here, given that they both die but with different outcomes, I'd take it as the Gentile dies to himself and the Jew becomes spiritually dead, but still, the wording of the verse would be just unfitting and awkward for that, so Huie explains this to simply represent a change of positions and status of the two groups. He also gives some explanation: “Most likely, hades originally meant "unseen." Later, it came to refer to the hidden state of those buried in the earth. Symbolically, this parable shows that a point would come when the house of Judah would become "unseen" by God, out of favor because of their unbelief. There would come a time when the Jews as a whole would no longer be God's favored nation. Their hard hearts would lead them to reject their Messiah (John 1:11).”

What about the apostles’ exhortation to endure many hardships to enter the Kingdom juxtaposed with being carried by the angels?

24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

I thought this was a rather interesting point by Huie on why the rich man doesn’t call on the Lord (Jesus Christ) but Abraham: “Unfortunately, this parable shows that the punishment and testing they would undergo would not immediately lead them to Christ. Instead of calling on the Messiah, the rich man calls on his ancestor Abraham to help ease his suffering.”

And the great gulf would represent unbelief here, which can be reasonable, yes, considering that when He opens, no one will shut, and what He shuts, no one will open.

27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’"

So here the rich man would be asking the beggar that is grafted in be sent to preach the Kingdom to the his brothers, the Israelites if you will, so that they may be saved. Are they talking about Christ Who is raised from the dead or the beggar raised from the dead by the Lord? Christ in him? If the rich man has been shut out in unbelief, how does he then recognize His Life? Or too little too late for him?

I can't pinpoint where and how this parable seems incoherent. On the whole it seems like it’s made for the wresting of its meaning, having some equivocal elements. However, The Book of Revelation is a good example of how you will only be left with confusion and endless questions if not given understanding by God’s grace. Here's where I'm at, wrong or right, can't say what to make of it.

Yes, I recognize that you provided a link. But rather than using someone else's work and words as a mouthpiece for your answer, I would prefer that you take the time to answer the questions I have asked in your own words from your own spiritual perspective.

Since I took the time to write and ask these things, perhaps you can love your neighbor by taking the time to reply.

More on the dog licking sores.

https://www.dogsnaturallymagazine.com/l ... granuloma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although it gives temporary relief like itching it only makes the sore worse. As so is the spiritual sores from living in darkness, made worse by the gentiles licking them to help but only making them worse. The blind leading the blind.

I would still like answers, but allow me to ask some further questions.

Okay, let's say the dog licking the sores are indicative that Lazarus was a gentile, and that dogs licking sores are symbolic of gentiles soothing each other in their sin state.

If Lazarus is a gentile who is only receiving comfort and reassurance that his sins are acceptable from other non-believers, how is it that he is granted favor in God's eyes while the rich man is sent to the fires?

By that reasoning, I don't see that Lazarus has repented or heard the Good News, but has merely been transported to Heaven regardless, while the rich man, an Israelite by your reasoning, has been punished, supposedly having the wealth of God by being a Jew? Is that what I am supposed to be gleaning from the rich man character in this parable?

What are we supposed to learn from these things? What's the lesson in faith? I can accept that Jesus Christ would be coming to preach to the Gentiles and that they would also be receiving salvation due to His sacrifice, but how does this relate to us personally as believers? I'm a Jew and a Gentile. Which character am I supposed to be identifying with?

What about attaining to Heaven and salvation in this life? What about the state of hell being something we experience here in this world? Is this story one of the afterlife, or is it a parable about here and now? Why then does it say they both die?

There's some details and explanations missing here, to me anyways. Perhaps you have an explanation, Simon? Please answer and avoid deflecting to other people and other writings. I genuinely want to hear what YOU have to say, Simon.

In the writers comparison of the rich man with the Jews he says they (the Jews) "were truly rich, feasting on God's spiritual blessings. Yet these very gifts caused them to stumble because they prompted them to self-righteousness."

Let's say the rich man did represent the Jews and they were believing God and "feasting on His spiritual blessings." Nowhere in this account does it point out that the rich man had become self-righteous - just that he was rich. The writer is adding that.

When the Lord spoke a parable against those who were trusting in their own righteousness He pointed to their self-righteousness - "I fast, I tithe, I pray, I do this, I do that, I'm not like that fellow over there." None of that is found here in this account.

And Paul said the Jews were shut out due to unbelief, but we don't see any indication of unbelief on the part of the rich man. We have to speculate and assume it was due to his love of riches and contempt for Lazarus.

There's no clear identification of any evil with the rich man. The only explicit statement that suggest the cause of him being in hell was simply "receiving good things" in this life. And can that be a cause for being given over to torment? I don't see it.

Speaking of Lazarus, the writer compares him to the Gentiles. He says, "The Gentiles were beggars, located outside Judah and longing to be fed spiritual crumbs from the table of the divinely blessed Jews."

But the Gentiles weren't longing to be fed spiritual crumbs ("no man seeks after God"), and if they were, they were granted it, in this life, like with the Syrophoenician woman.

If this represents spiritually blessed turned self-righteous Jews and spiritually hungry Gentiles where is the indicator of that with the rich man, and why was Lazarus disease ridden, poor in this life and then just dies in that state? Why does it put things off into the next life if the Gentiles were to receive salvation in this life? It indicates receiving good necessarily means torment in the next life and evil in this life means good in the next. It's confusing.

At a minimum the account is ambiguous, and I don't see it being supported by the other Scriptures.

Brandon you keep referring to this parable as a indication of afterlife. If you had read the link instead of pestering me to basically rewrite it in my own words you would understand the deaths both had was the swapping of positions.

The death of the position of the spiritually wealthy Pharisee into darkness.

The death of the position of the gentile from darkness into gods kingdom.

I will answer any questions you have regarding the link I gave, but do me the respect of actually reading and understanding it first otherwise I will just be regurgitating the same information.

As for your questions Ronnie. How do we know? This is the last of a series of parables. Take it in context with the others.
The fact that the rich man is not sharing the spiritual food. Because they thought themselves better by way of bloodline. To keep the treasure god gave them to share, to themselves.

24 `And he also who hath received the one talent having come, said, Sir, I knew thee, that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou didst not sow, and gathering from whence thou didst not scatter;
25 and having been afraid, having gone away, I hid thy talent in the earth; lo, thou hast thine own!
26 `And his lord answering said to him, Evil servant, and slothful, thou hadst known that I reap where I did not sow, and I gather whence I did not scatter!
27 it behoved thee then to put my money to the money-lenders, and having come I had received mine own with increase.
28 `Take therefore from him the talent, and give to him having the ten talents,
29 for to every one having shall be given, and he shall have overabundance, and from him who is not having, even that which he hath shall be taken from him;
30 and the unprofitable servant cast ye forth to the outer darkness; there shall be the weeping and the gnashing of the teeth.


for I did hunger, and ye gave me not to eat; I did thirst, and ye gave me not to drink;
43 a stranger I was, and ye did not receive me; naked, and ye put not around me; infirm, and in prison, and ye did not look after me.
44 `Then shall they answer, they also, saying, Lord, when did we see thee hungering, or thirsting, or a stranger, or naked, or infirm, or in prison, and we did not minister to thee?
45 `Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of these, the least, ye did [it] not to me.

Also the fact that he is a beggar at the rich mans gate tells you he is spiritually hungry unlike the dogs licking his sores.
God has drawn him but gods servants (Jewish priests) are not feeding him.

In His leading the Lord has kept me, for a time, both from Victor's articles on corrupted texts in scripture and from the texts themselves. I trust this was because of my history of bibliolatry and a propensity to dismiss out of hand any suggestion of imperfection in the Bible. I'm thankful for this conversation because it is evidently time to dive in. May the Lord continue to humble us to receive His wisdom and clarity in these things.

I will share these first thoughts upon reading this thread and Luke 16 but will then be exploring the articles Simon Charles sited here and what has been written at TPOT. If I touch on anything already addressed or clarified elsewhere please forgive me for redundancy or ignorance.

I didn't immediately see a disconnect in the narrative of the parable from anything else that had been spoken in Luke. Rather, it seemed to be supported by earlier portions of Luke.

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man who was customarily clothed in purple and fine linen and making merry in luxury every day.
Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, who was laid at his gate, full of sores
Luk 16:21 and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. But even the dogs came and licked his sores.

Luk 6:24 But woe to you who are rich! For you have received your consolation.
Luk 6:25 Woe to you who are full! For you shall hunger. Woe to you who laugh now! For you shall mourn and weep.
Luk 6:20 And lifting up His eyes to His disciples, He said, Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Luk 6:21 Blessed are you who hunger now, for you shall be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you shall laugh

Given that Lazarus was laid at this man's gate and desired from the rich man, I took the "even the dogs licked his sores" to mean that in his pitiful state even beasts sought to comfort him while the rich man did not. If he had, Lazarus would not still have been "desiring". So this rich man, not loving his neighbor as himself, like all but the Samaritan on the road, is deserving of his condemnation.


Luk 16:22 And it happened that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich one also died and was buried.
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things. But now he is comforted and you are tormented.

Here the rich man man, still in his sin as evidenced by His hypocrisy, calls for mercy where he gave none. He is not repentant (perhaps alluded to also by the omission of "desiring" in the next verse when referring to the dead passing over to the living. They do not desire it and only God's severe purging of them reveals the gold.)


Luk 16:26 And besides all this, there is a great chasm fixed between you and us; so that they desiring to pass from here to you cannot, nor can they pass over to us from there.

This still dead man (cut off from God) in outer darkness has no way to bridge the gap. Is that not because the way had not yet been made as Jesus had not yet been crucified? ( I am basing this on 1 Peter 3:19-20, His having preached to the disobedient souls of Noah's day in hell. If I'm misreading that passage please correct me.) Once Christ rose and ascended aren't all judged by their faith in Him through their obedience? But this rich man was judged by the Law being unrighteous under it. Certainly, we don't know anything about Lazarus but if the symbolism Jenni referenced is accurate, a gentile desiring the crumbs from the table of Isreal is not an impossibility because Rom 2:13-14 say describes "For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when the nations, who do not have the Law, do by nature the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law unto themselves;". And like with Noah, Lazarus may have found grace in the eyes of the Lord. Rom 9:15-16 "For He said to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.' So then it is not of the one willing, nor of the one running, but of God, the One showing mercy"

Luk 16:27 And he said, I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house,
Luk 16:28 for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, No, father Abraham, but if one should go to them from the dead, they would repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said to him, If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded, even though one rose from the dead.

These final verses would seem to speak as a testament against the hardness of heart of the house of Isreal, their disobedience to the commandment to love God and neighbor and their failure to recognize the sign of the times. It would also seem to foreshadow the revelation of the promise of God for the nations as seen in Rom 9-11

*An additional thought on Luk 16:26 And besides all this, there is a great chasm fixed between you and us; so that they desiring to pass from here to you cannot, nor can they pass over to us from there.

Paul's words from Rom 9:3 came to mind:
"For I myself was wishing to be accursed from Christ for my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh,"
so that even one such as Paul could not, though desiring, become accursed from Christ because
Rom 8:38-39 "neither death, nor life, nor angels, norprincipalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Didn't want to overthink all of this too much, please correct me if I'm in error. I'm looking forward to reading more of your responses!

Didn't mean to jump in too early there, Simon Charles. The last post I saw was Ronnie's. Carry on, I'm interested to read both sides now.

Hi,

I am not convinced by what Bryan Huie have presented. To echo what Jenni have said:

If the rich man has been shut out in unbelief, how does he then recognize His Life? Or too little too late for him?

And since there is a gulf in-between where Lazarus and the rich man were, how and why all of a sudden the rich man (spiritually blind Jews) realised that he is where he is unless the Lord have shown him mercy?

Just a thought.

Tony

There really is way too many deficiencies in Huie’s explanation as it stands. And as Brandon asked, what’s the lesson in faith? It doesn't make sense.

I would be interested to hear others’ thoughts on what Lauren had to say.

This is a short Email correspondence I had with Victor (The rich man and Lazarus)

Dear Victor. While reading some Scriptures in relation to the latest post/s (The Rich man and Lazarus) and also reading your own teaching on this subject posted on TPOT Website, I find it mentioned that the faithful are never forsaken or left destitute. In your letter relating to the above, posted on TPOT, you write....

"Why is a righteous person represented as a beggar? David wrote this."

“I have been young, and am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, or his seed begging bread” (Psalms 37:25 MKJV).

“A Psalm also declares: “The Lord God is our sun and our strength: the Lord will give grace and glory: He will not keep back any good thing from those whose ways are upright” (Psalms 84:11 BBE).”

There seems to be a lot of emphases placed on the Righteousness/Faith, or the lack of such, on both men in this story. There are plenty of Scriptures to back up what you are saying, but I was wondering if this is always the case. I was wondering about the Scripture below from Hebrews 11 (NKJV)

"Others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. 36 Still others had trial of mocking’s and scourging’s, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. 37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted,[f] were slain with the sword. They wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented— 38 of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth. 39 And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, 40 God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us."

While I am satisfied with your teaching on the “Rich man and Lazarus” would I be wrong in thinking that there are exceptions to the case, at least for this present life? That is to say, that men of Faith are never forsaken or his seed seen begging bread. Does it follow that because David had never seen it in his day, that it was/is never the case?
Brian.

Victor’s response.....

Are you not confusing martyrdom with a death unseemly for believers? God never changes; it has always been that saints do not suffer needlessly or undeservedly as do sinners. God will not suffer His children to beg. Why? Because they put their trust in Him and not in men. Must sons of God beg of men, especially sinners – at any time in history? Does that make sense to you?

My response....

Yes, I can see that now. Tortured, put to the sword, sawn in two, scourged and so on. These would have been cases of martyrdom.
While reading Hebrews 11 where it says, “They wandered in deserts and mountains, in dens and caves of the earth”, I was thinking of men like John the Baptist. Of course, John would have chosen to live this way, rejecting the kingdom of men. Wicked man may have forced others into such dire positions but God then restores them.

Brian.

Addition:

I can see now what David meant and also Victor’s explanation.

“ I have been young, and am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, or his seed begging bread” (Psalms 37:25 MKJV).

God would never forsake His children or have their seed beg for bread from men. If so, that would be akin to God abandoning His children to the care of Satan. What a foolish thought.

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"
Matthew 7:11 KJB.

I’d be grateful if you could post this for the sake of others who have been and still are, interested in this discussion, that they not think I am ignoring them or have needlessly abandoned the thread. Which is the perception given if you are going to censer debate and stop me buying and selling.

Unfortunately victor has decided to prevent my posts on the grounds in his words that I am making “opinion on strawman” by backing up the change in old to New Testament and the casting out of Israel and grafting in the gentiles by relating it also to the historic records regarding the sacking of the temple, the stoppage of temple sacrifices and no more prophets to those who still hold onto Old Testament laws and then the flourishing of Christians.

God bless you all and thank you for your responses.

Simon doesn't understand what I've referred to as "straw men" and I'm not interested in explaining anything more to him. In this proposed post, he declares we (or I) operate in the mark of the beast, permitting only those with the mark to buy or sell:

Revelation 13:16-18 MKJV
(16) And it causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark on their right hand, or in their foreheads,
(17) even that not any might buy or sell except those having the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of its name.
(18) Here is the wisdom. Let him having reason count the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man. And its number is six hundred and sixty-six.

See below for the disapproved post that Simon Charles is referring to, followed by the disapproval message, and the audio recording where we discussed the matter.

Simon Charles wrote: The rich man recognises the judgement. 70ad the temple was sacked and the Jewish people have been scattered going from persecution to persecution.

There have been no prophets or gifts from god in all that time. And you wonder why he recognises the plight of those still clinging onto Old Testament Pharisees interpretationists?

At the same time you have a huge growth of followers of Jesus. (Fake and real, some laced with corruption some kept by god. Ie; Notice the judgements to the 7 churches)

The rich man is being given a hypothetical insight into the truth after the death of the old convent to the new.
He is now spiritually hungry for waters. “I will give you waters that never run out” but belief in Jesus is what’s stopping them.

The lesson of faith from gods actions here are obvious after the series of 3/5 parables. Give freely what god has given you to others. This is loving your neighbour. Don’t be like the self righteous stewards.

Unfortunately lots of Christians today follow the same path.

Declaring “gods hates you but loves me” “I’m going to heaven you to hell”

And it is all built on the foundation of “free will”

“I earnt it but you refused, so I deserve it but you don’t.”

Gods of their own destinies. Being in the form of god but denying the power thereof.

This is the exact lesson god took out on Job.

The disapproval message:

Victor Hafichuk wrote: Simon, we have permitted you to present your case, as well as that of Huie, of course, Gary Amirault, and L Ray Smith. I, Victor Hafichuk, stand with what we've written and we will have more exposition coming - watch for it.

Meanwhile, we disapprove this submission of yours as mere opinion built against straw men, which goes nowhere and serves no good purpose for anyone. You've said far more than enough and we're thankful for the opportunity to prove the error.

On May 5, 2018 several people got together on a phone call and we discussed the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Listen here:

https://www.podbean.com/media/player/wz ... m=yiiadmin[/iframe]