Articles


Here are some articles that I hope you find helpful.
 

Articles

  1. IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN (LUKE 16:19-31) A REAL STORY OR A PARABLE?

    By Bob LaForge

    ABSTRACT

    Lazarus and the Rich Man is a well-known and often referred to Scripture. But is it a parable with a focus on money matters or a real story that reveals the afterlife of every person? Comparing this passage to the characteristics of Gospel parables and examining reasons for defining it as a parable the conclusion is that this was a real story that Jesus was relating to His disciples and to the Pharisees. Having an accurate understanding of how this passage should be interpreted gives significant and trustworthy insight into everyone’s eternal destinations.

    The passage in Luke 16:19-31 is usually referred to as “Lazarus and the Rich Man.” Some call it “Dives and Lazarus.” Dives in Latin means “rich” and is the common noun used for the rich man in the Vulgate Bible.

    This passage is cited frequently and has been very influential regarding the afterlife and social justice.

    In the sixteenth century in Germany during the Reformation there were no less than ten plays that were written that dramatize this story.1 “The ten plays in question all deal with wealth and poverty, personal luxuries and severe deprivation, gluttony and drunkenness and starvation. These were all evident in German society, and they were explosive issues.”2

    This story even appears in contemporary, secular works such as “The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook” regarding charity and social giving.3 “This is the Christian role model of true compassion. Similarly, Dives roasts in hell for his neglect to rescue Lazarus, who died on the rich man’s doorstep, getting more pity from the master’s dogs. The fate of such hard-hearted men as Dives who refused to consider their neighbors shows the ultimate recompense of selfishness and ethnocentrism.”4

    This passage can be divided into three sections. The first section from verses 19 – 21 occurs on the earth and contrasts the lives of a rich man and a poor man. Both lived in proximity to each other. Verse 22 is the transition section. The rich man goes to a place of torment whereas the poor man, Lazarus, is carried to Abraham’s bosom which is a place of comfort. The third section is verses 23-31 and is primarily a dialogue between the rich man and Father Abraham that takes places in the afterlife. There are several themes here including a brief description of both places, the finality of destiny once dead, how we live our lives affects our afterlife, and the sufficiency of Scripture relating to the choice of eternal destiny.

    How one interprets and applies this passage depends greatly on whether it is considered to be a parable or an actual real event. Surveying a number of commentaries 29 believe it to be a parable5 and two consider it to be a real event6.

    If it was a real story then it is interpreted literally meaning that its details provide insight into what happens when people die. The focus is on the third section. Here is commentary by the apostolic father Irenaeus, “By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist, that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognized, and retain the memory of things in this world..”7

    If it is considered to be a parable then it is generally interpreted analogously with the primary lesson referring to money matters and how to treat other people. The focus is on the first section. Sometimes there will be a light-weight insight into the afterlife but usually as an addendum. Here are some examples,

    “Of course, Jesus is saying that riches don't count for anything after we die, but that isn't the thrust of this parable. I think he is making two points. 1) Wealth without active mercy for the poor is great wickedness. 2) If we close our eyes to the truth we are given, then we are doomed.”8

    “In this story, God’s eternal judgment has everything to do with how we use wealth in this life and whether we attend to those less fortunate in our midst.”9

     “… he is using it simply to meet his opponents, the Pharisees, on their own ground: using a story familiar to them, in order to convict them out of their own mouths, as it were, for both their indifference to the poor and their contemptuous dismissal of His own teaching and mission.”10

    Some explicitly state that this story cannot be used to interpret the afterlife.

     he does not intend here to give a preview of life after death.”11 and “it is not safe to draw any inferences from the narrative relative to the future state.”12

    It does matter whether this story was real or is a parable.

    WHAT IS A PARABLE?

    The Bible uses many literary devices: simile, metaphor, allegory, symbol, personification, hyperbole, proverb and others. Parable is one of these devices.

    The root word of parable is “paraballo.” “Para” means “at or to one side of, deside, side by side” and “ballo” means to “a throwing.” Hence parable means “to throw alongside” as in a comparison.

    Aggregating a number of definitions 13 we see that a Biblical parable has the following characteristics.

    1)      It is a comparison between two different things.

    2)      It is a short story usually between one sentence and several paragraphs.

    3)      It has a front side which is the story and a back side which is what is being illustrated.

    4)      The front side is not necessarily historical but will be true to life.

    5)      The front side is familiar, recognizable, and easily understood and will draw from nature, common activities or situations, family life, business, personnel interactions, and politics.

    6)      The back side is a spiritual principle or moral lesson that is harder to understand.

    7)      The back side is not stated or revealed in the story; it is hidden. It must be derived by reasoning and deduction.

    8)      It has one central point.

    9)      The details of the front side are there only to illustrate the main point and are not meant to call attention to themselves.

    Thus we can define a parable as a familiar, realistic short story that illustrates a spiritual truth.

    Easton’s Bible Dictionary calls a parable “an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.” 14

    DOES LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN FIT THE CRITERIA OF A PARABLE?

    FRONT AND BACK SIDES

    By its very definition there are two sides to a parable. There is the front side. This is the telling of an event or events that is potentially observable and familiar. But the front side is not the main point; it is not the reason for the telling of the story.

    In the parable of the lost coin (Luke 15:8-9) Jesus is not telling the story to encourage us to look for lost money. This is merely an illustration of a back side. We can match up the front side to the back side. The coin represents a person.  A coin has special value because it has stamped on it the image of the king; otherwise, it is just a piece of metal. Likewise, a person has special value because we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The woman represents God who has a tremendous concern about this lost person. So the woman lights a lamp symbolic of how Jesus is the light of the world (John 8:12) and she sweeps out the dirt showing how He washes away our sins (Psalm 51:2). Then when she has found the coin she rejoices with her friends and neighbors just as when a person repents and is born-again all of heaven rejoices. The real moral of the story is how much God cares about the eternal destiny of each person and therefore we should be driven by that same attitude.

    Every parable has these two stories: an illustrative front story based on the recognizable and natural and the meaningful back story based on the supernatural.

    Lazarus does not have a front and back side. Yes, the first section (verses 19 – 21) are common, natural events. You could walk down the street in Jerusalem in that day and see a poor man lying at the gate of a rich man. And the third section (verses 22 – 31) is supernatural. But the first section which occurs on the earth transitions to the third section which occurs in the supernatural. The third section is not an explanation of the first section; it is the result of the first section.

    This is unlike a parable such as the Sower in Matthew 13:3-23 where we can read both sides of the parable. Verses 3 – 9 are the actual parable as Jesus told to the crowd. This is the front side. Verses 18-23 are the back story but was the explanation that Jesus gave later on only to His disciples. This passage was not part of the actual, initial parable.

    Lazarus and the Rich Man likewise can be separated into two parts: the natural and the supernatural but the difference from the Sower is that Luke 16 is one linear story that occurs in two realms. Verses 22 – 31 are not the explanation of verses 19 – 21 as we see with the Sower; rather, they are the consequence of it. Lazarus and the Rich Man is essentially a supernatural story where the setup is natural but then segues into the supernatural where the primary revelation occurs.

    So here in Lazarus and the Rich Man we do not see a recognizable front side and a back side that must be deduced by reasoning. The entire story is laid out right in front of us.

    HIDDEN MEANING

    When in Matthew 13:10 the disciples asked Jesus, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered that the reason was to hide spiritual meaning from those who have closed their eyes to the spiritual. The real meaning behind the story will only be discerned by those who actually care, by those who want to want to take the time and make an effort to understand. To the rest (the “them” in verse 11) the story of the parable is nothing more than what they hear upfront.

    For example, the parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matt 13:24-30) could be interpreted by a non-believer as being simply about gardening. If someone who does not like you throws weed seed into your garden then wait until both are mature before you weed otherwise you may pull out your good plants with the bad. That was all that Jesus was talking about, they claim, and they do not care about anything more.

    But those who are spiritual see the deeper spiritual meaning of how the wicked and the deceivers are mixed in with true believers and that they can be hard to tell apart. The final separating must be left to God and to the truths that He has given to us in the Bible.

    Every parable has this obscuration. Lazarus and the Rich Man does not. Its meaning is straightforward. A non-Christian can understand it even if he or she cannot mine every nuance and truth. They can easily take away that the selfish and wicked will go to a place of torment and the good, regardless of their earthly state, will go to a place of comfort.

    Lazarus and the Rich Man does not have the hidden meaning that Jesus said every parable must have.

    PRESENTATION OF THE STORY

    Every Biblical parable presented a short story from beginning to end that was commonplace and familiar. They were relatable. In every one of them a person could be standing off to the side and watch what is going on. You could be walking on a road and see five women entering a carriage with lit lanterns while five other women are rushing down the street to buy oil for their extinguished lanterns. It may be an unlikely event but it, or something very similar, could be witnessed. We could see a man searching in ditches and bushes for his lost sheep. We could be coming home from the market and find a man who is beaten and left on the side of the road. These were recognizable if not always common situations. There was a wedding feast, someone who owes a lot of money, a tree with no figs and so on.

    The entire story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is not commonplace nor familiar. It is not something that anyone could witness as they go about their day. This story primarily takes place in a realm that is beyond access. No one in the course of their day would see angel’s carrying someone into the afterlife or run across Abraham’s Bosom. This would be impossible apart from a supernatural intervention.

    Therefore, Lazarus and the Rich Man is very different from all of Jesus’ parables regarding presentation.

    NO COMPARISON

    The definition of “parable” is a comparison of one thing that is placed or “thrown” alongside another thing. This is the front side compared to the back side. They are two threads, the natural and the supernatural, that run alongside of and parallel to each other.

    In Luke 8:16-18 a lamp is not put under a basket but put on a lampstand compares to the Gospel not been hidden in our lives but eagerly shared with those who do not know.

    In Matt 7:24-27 the house built on sand falls when opposition comes but the house built on a rock will endure. Likewise, a person who builds his or her life on money, prestige, or power will fall when trials come, but the person who builds his life on the eternal foundation of Jesus Christ and the Bible will endure.

    In Lazarus and the Rich Man there is no comparison. The first section is not a comparison to the third section. They are a linear series of events with verse 22 as the transition.

    IS IT EVER CALLED A PARABLE?

    When I ask Bible teachers who have just taught on Lazarus and the Rich Man why they say that it is a parable their response is always, “Because the Bible says that it is a parable.” Does it?

    Of the 38 parables in the Bible, 26 clearly state that they are a parable. 15

    Some immediately introduce the passage with the word “parable.” Luke 12:16 starts with, “And He told them a parable…” Jesus then immediately tells the story of the rich fool who builds bigger barns to store all of his crops thinking that he can now lead a life of ease not knowing that God will require his soul that very night.

    Others are sets of parables that are bookended by the word “parable.” Mark 4:2 starts with “And He was teaching them many things in parables…” Then follows the four parables of Sower, Lamp under a Basket, Seed that God grows, and Mustard Seed. This ends with verse 33, “With many such parables He was speaking the word to them, so far as they were able to hear it.”

    Three others do not use the word “parable” but use terminology that are consistent with it being a parable. Matthew 25:1, “Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable…” just before the Ten Virgins. Matthew 20:1, “For the kingdom of heaven is like…” just before the Workers in the Vineyard. Matthew 18:23, “the kingdom of heaven may be compared…” just before the Unforgiving Servant.

    For the nine without a clear proclamation as being a parable, their structure and characteristics seem to clearly indicate a parable. 16

    Lazarus and the Rich Man is not introduced nor bookended by the word “parable” or a similar phrase such as “Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable…”

    Many commentators connect the parable in Luke 16:1-9 with Lazarus and the Rich Man by claiming that the flow of the chapter is about money and since each of these stories is primarily about money they are, therefore, both parables.

    But when we examine the themes of Luke 16 we see that is not the case.

    Verses 1-9 Money

    Verses 10-13 Money

    Verses 14-15 Money

    Verses 16-17 The permanency of the Law and Gospel

    Verse 18 Marriage and divorce

    Verses 19-31 Lazarus and the Rich Man

    By verse 16 we see that Jesus has moved away from the theme of money. Therefore there is no flowing connection between the money themed story in verses 1 – 9 and Lazarus and the Rich Man.

    This passage is never referred to as a parable.

    PROPER NAME OF LAZARUS

    In this story, one of the characters is given a proper/formal name, Lazarus. Does that definitively mean that this is a real story? Could a Biblical parable have a proper name?

    The Greek name Λαζαροσ (Lazaros) is the Hellenized version of the Hebrew name אלעזר, Eleazar17. The name means “God is my help.” But even though “Lazarus” is a proper name could, in this case, it be used as a title instead? I.e., the “Lazarus” in this story is representative of all people whom God helps find comfort in the afterlife rather than a single real person?

    A way to determine if this is possible is to examine all other proper names in the Gospels. If there are instances where proper names refer to real people and then also to fictionalized characters then just because the character in Lazarus and the Rich Man has a formal name does not necessarily mean that he is a real person.

    In the four Gospels there are 89 characters with a proper name18. The genealogies are not included because it is obvious that these were all real people. In every one of these 89 instances this character was clearly a real person.

    There are also twenty Old Testament proper names mentioned in the Gospels19 and in every case these clearly refer to real people.

    There is not a single instance in the Gospels where a proper name is ascribed to someone who is not a real person. Therefore, it is extremely improbable that the name “Lazarus” in Lazarus and the Rich Man is not likewise referring to a real person. Out of 109 names in the Gospels there is zero precedent for a proper name to be attributed to a fictitious character.

    William Robert West attempts to answer this argument. “The objection of others is that parables do not use proper names. ‘And he took up his parable, and said, “From ARAM has BALAK brought me, the king of MOAB from the mountains of the East: come, curse me JACOB, and come, defy ISRAEL"’ [Numbers 23:7]. Not one but FIVE PROPER NAMES are used in one parable. ‘SATAN’ [Mark 4:14] ‘THE SON OF MAN’ [Matthew 13:37].” 20

    Regarding Numbers 23:7, the word that KJV translates as “parable” can also be translated as proverb, by-word, discourse, similitude, and poem21. In the 38 times that מָשָׁל is used in the Old Testament only three refer to an actual parable. 22 Of those three, not one uses a proper name. Even in Ezekiel 17:1-10 where it says “speak a parable to the house of Israel” the actual parable itself never uses the name “Israel” or any other proper name. The same is true in Ezekiel 20:45-49 where Ezekiel is told to speak the parable to several places by name but then in the actual parable no proper name is mentioned.

    In the uses in Numbers it is always a prophetic reference to real people in real places. If you would call those parables then you would have to call the entire book of Revelation a parable since it is similar in style.

    Therefore, it is not true that “FIVE PROPER NAMES are used in one parable” but rather that proper names are being used in a prophetic discourse similar to many prophetic discourses in the Bible (Daniel and  Revelation for example).

    Mark 4:14 is Jesus’ explanation of the parable and not the parable itself. The actual parable contains no proper names which only strengthens the definition of a parable as a saying that has no proper names.

    The same is true of Matthew 13:37. When Jesus says “the Son of Man” He is giving the explanation of a parable; it is not the parable itself.

    We can conclude that if Luke 16:19-31 is a parable then it would be the only time in the Bible and certainly in the Gospels where a proper name is used. That is extremely unlikely and without precedence. Therefore, that a character has a proper name is significant in determining that this story was real.

    ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT BEING A REAL STORY

    SAME BEGINNING AS LUKE 16:1 WHICH IS A PARABLE

    Luke 16:1-9 which is considered to be a parable starts with “There was a rich man…” In the same chapter, verse 19 begins almost identically, “Now there was a rich man… ” The conclusion is that therefore Lazarus and the Rich Man is also a parable.

    However, similar initial phrases does not indicate the same literary type.

    The phrase “The kingdom of heaven” starts many parables (Matthew 13:11, Matthew 13:24, Matthew 13:31, Matthew 13:33, Matthew 13:44, Matthew 13:35, Matthew 13:47, Matthew 13:52) yet there are other times that Jesus starts a discourse with that same phrase and it is clearly not a parable (Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 10:7, Matthew 18:1).

    We see the same with the phrase “What do you think?” In Matthew 18:12 and Matthew 21:28 it starts a parable. In Matthew 17:25 and Matthew 22:17 it starts a comment that is not a parable.

    Having a similarly sounding or even the exact same phrase to start a discussion does not at all mean that they are the same literary types.

    AFTER AN EGYPTIAN STORY

    Several commentators claim that Jesus was adapting an Egyptian source tale and giving it a Jewish bent.

    G.B. Caird wrote, “In this parable Jesus was using a familiar folk-tale and adapting it to a new purpose by adding an unfamiliar twist to the end of it. The story of the wicked rich man and the pious poor man, whose fortunes were reversed in the afterlife, seems to have come originally from Egypt, and was popular among Jewish teachers. The picture of the fate in store for the good and the evil after death is also drawn from traditional Jewish sources (c£ 2 En. 9'°).”23

    Caird is probably referring to the story of Si-Osiris. A story in the Palestinian Talmud has a similar plot to Lazarus and the Rich Man.

    Si-Osiris tells us, a father and son witness two funerals, one of a rich man being buried in splendor and much ceremony and another of a poor man being buried in poverty and simplicity. The father professed that he would rather have the fate of the rich whereas the son disagreed. To prove his point, the son took his father to the seven halls of Amente (the realm of the dead). There they saw the rich man in torment whereas the poor man was elevated to a position near Osiris, the Lord of the Underworld.

    In the Palestinian Talmud we read about a rich tax collector and a poor Torah scholar who both die on the same day. The tax collector is buried in grandeur whereas the poor scholar is buried without ceremony. A friend of the poor man has a dream and sees the rich man in torment whereas the poor man is in paradise24.

    Even if there was a similar story in Egyptian stories this does not prove that Jesus stole it from there.

    There were flood stories in Mesopotamian, Babylonian, and Hindu literature. Does that mean that Noah stole the Genesis story from them? Perhaps it is in all of that literature because it really did happen and each one recorded it but with the Bible’s account being the only inspired and fully accurate one.

    Likewise, there are resurrection stories outside of the Bible: Ancient Greek (Dionysus, Persephone, Asclepius, Achilles and others), Egyptian (Osiris), Hindu (Ganesha and Krishna), Norse (Odin), Sumerian (Tammuz), and Finnish (Lemminkainen). Yet I believe that Jesus actually and physically rose from the dead and not that the disciples fabricated His resurrection because they were familiar with other religious resurrection accounts.

    Jesus, being God, would not need to rely upon other cultural or religious tales. He created “all things” (Colossians 1:16). He, more than anyone ever, would be very able to present a true story no matter how unfamiliar and astonishing.

    HOW CAN THERE BE JOY IN HEAVEN IF THEY CAN SEE THEIR DAMNED FAMILY MEMBERS IN HELL?

    “If hell is truly as it is pictured in this story, then the saved will be able to view the lost who are burning there. Could anyone enjoy eternal existence if they were able to see lost friends, family, and acquaintances being incinerated in hell, yet never burning up?” 25

    A great mistake of this criticism is that the places in Lazarus and the Rich Man are the final places of both the righteous and the wicked and that we will be near each other for all eternity. They are not. The two places in Luke 16:19-31 are not the final destinations of Heaven and Hell. These are only holding places until the major resurrections when one side is transported to Heaven and the other side is cast into Hell. Abraham’s Bosom was permanently emptied when Jesus ascended (Ephesians 4:8). The Rich Man’s side will be emptied at the Great White Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). After those two resurrections no one will ever be in either of these two places. There is no indication in Scripture that those in Heaven and those in Hell will be able to see each.

    Also, could it not be argued that if you do not see a relative in Heaven that, therefore, he must be in Hell? Though you could not see him you would still have a deep understanding of the torment that he is going through. Would this not be nearly the same anguish that this criticism is arguing against? But we know that Heaven will be a place of perfect peace. How can this then be? God, who loves each person far more intimately than we do, actually will see these people in Hell and yet He will not spend eternity in sorrow and distress. That is because He has a full and complete understanding of sin and judgment, of holiness and arrogance. Once we are in Heaven and have had the veil of sin removed from our eyes we will likewise have a much clearer understanding of these same themes. We will never see as God does, but it will certainly be with much greater understanding than we have now.

    HOW WOULD THE RICH MAN RECOGNIZE ABRAHAM?

    How did the three disciples recognize Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration? Did Moses and Elijah announce themselves? Did Jesus introduce them? However Peter, James, and John knew it was them it could have been something similar with the Rich Man and Lazarus.

    IT IMPLIES THAT THE RICH GO TO HELL AND THE POOR GO TO HEAVEN

    “Those who insist that this is not a parable, but a true, literal story Christ told to describe the condition of the lost in hell must overlook several facts to arrive at that conclusion. First, Yeshua the Messiah never accuses the rich man of any sin. He is simply portrayed as a wealthy man who lived the good life. Furthermore, Lazarus is never proclaimed to be a righteous man. He is just one who had the misfortune to be poor and unable to care for himself. If this story is literal, then the logical implication is that all the rich are destined to burn in hell, while all the homeless and destitute will be saved. Does anyone believe this to be the case?”26

    Whatever your view of this story you face the same dilemma. What is the relationship of riches and poverty to the afterlife? Whether or not it is a parable or literal does not affect that. It is not like those who believe it to be a parable have a cut-and-dry answer and the literalists must squirm in their seats trying to devise a solution. The rest of Scripture teaches us that one must be born-again to enter into Heaven. That same tenet applied to Lazarus and the rich man. This is not a story about salvation; it is a story about destinations.

    SHEOL NOT AN ACTUAL PLACE

    “This is the only place in the Bible where the dead are depicted as suffering in ‘hades’ (or ‘sheol’, the Old Testament equivalent). Everywhere else, the word ‘hades’ (verse 23) has its Old Testament meaning, Sheol. It simply means death or the realm of death.”27

    “It is a place or state of ‘corruption’ (Acts 2:27). In the Bible, the ‘underworld’ is never hell but the place of the dead awaiting judgment.”28

    This claim is that Lazarus and the Rich Man is the only passage in the Bible depicting Sheol as an actual place where people consciously suffer. Therefore, it is inconsistent with the rest of Scripture which depicts Sheol/Hades as merely the physical grave or just as death itself.

    Sheol and Hades are the same place. Sheol is the Hebrew word and Hades is the Greek word. Sheol is used 65 times in the NASB Bible all in the Old Testament. Hades is used ten times all in the New Testament. In Psalm 16:10 we read, “For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.” Then in Acts 2:31 Peter quotes the same verse but says, “he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that He was neither abandoned to Hades, nor did His flesh suffer decay.” In Psalm 16 David calls it Sheol but in Acts 2 Peter calls it Hades.

    Is Sheol an actual place or does it merely synonymous with death or the grave?

    We see that both the righteous (Genesis 37:35) and the wicked (Numbers 16:30) go there. Job 11:8 implies that its location is much deeper than a grave.29 If Sheol is merely a synonym for death then how are the righteous ransomed or delivered from Sheol (Psalm 49:15; 86:13)? Both the righteous and the wicked die. In Sheol there is sorrow (2 Samuel 22:6) and pain (Psalm 116:3), and those in Sheol tremble (Job 26:5-6). These are all physical, conscious, active experiences contrasted to the stillness of death or the grave.

    In no instances is an actual burial site or grave referred to using Sheol (שְׁאוֹל). Rather it will use a word like קָֽבֶר such as in Genesis 23:9, 20.

    Developing the theme of Sheol/Hades would require its own extensive article, but Scripture indicates that it is an actual place apart from being merely the grave or death.

    EMPTY GRAVES

    “Another dilemma that arises with a literal interpretation of this story could be called ‘the mystery of the empty graves.’ If this is taken literally, apparently neither of the two leading characters spent very long in the grave--both being whisked away rather quickly to their respective places of reward. Their bodies obviously came along, for we find the rich man lifting up his eyes, and desiring to have his tongue cooled by a drop of water from the finger of Lazarus who was resting, as we have seen, in Abraham's bosom. Enough graves have been exhumed in recent years to know that the bodies of the deceased are carried neither to heaven or hell after burial. They finally turn to dust and await the resurrection.”30

    “Since this passage is cited as a literal description of actual events (and not as a parable) it is helpful to show that even the immortal soulist cannot take this passage as a literal description. The following is the evidence: The passage speaks about bodies not souls. E.g., eyes, bosom (vs. 23) tip of finger and tongue (vs. 24).”31

    “Contenders for literalism suppose that the rich man and Lazarus were disembodied spirits, destitute of bodies. Yet the rich man is described as having "eyes" that see and a "tongue" that speaks, as well as seeking relief from the "finger" of Lazarus-all real body parts. They are portrayed as existing physically, despite the fact that the rich man's body was duly buried in the grave. Was his body carried away into hades together with his soul by mistake?”32

    We know that no one could be resurrected into Heaven until Jesus (the first fruits) was resurrected first. We also know that unbelievers will not be resurrected until the Great White Throne judgement. We read in Revelation 20:13, “And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.” So there were, are, and will be people in Hades. Are they in disembodied states? Are they in a sleep state? Psalm 73 in a description of what happens when the wicked man dies says in verses 18-19, “Surely You set them in slippery places; You cast them down to destruction. How they are destroyed in a moment! They are utterly swept away by sudden terrors!” This is Asaph describing the death of the wicked thousands of years before the Great White Throne judgement in Revelation 20. The wicked do not die and sleep in a disembodied state. Rather, they have the faculties to experience terror and “sudden” terror. Not terror thousands of years later. They will be conscious.

    The dead having tangible bodies can be seen in “The Transfiguration.” Matthew 17:3-4 reads, “And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him. Peter said to Jesus, ‘Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.’” Clearly Moses and Elijah were not invisible, ghostly apparitions. They must have had some kind of outward body since Peter saw them. Though one might argue that Elijah had never died and so might have maintained his earthly body Moses had died (Deuteronomy 34:5). In Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30 it says that Elijah and Moses were talking with Jesus. Therefore, they had mouths with which to speak and ears to listen. There is no indication that Peter, James, and John were horrified by how Elijah and Moses appeared. Peter even offered to build tabernacles for them and Jesus. Therefore, the dead do have ears, ears, mouths, arms, legs and all the rest of their physical body parts.

    The story of Saul and the medium at Endor in 1 Samuel 28 is, of course, much debated as to what the spirit of Samuel really was. Was it a demon, Samuel himself, or something else? The Bible, however, specifically says Samuel appeared. Samuel’s accurate and specific predictions furthermore indicate that this was not a demonic spirit. Only God knows the end from the beginning (Isaiah 46:10) and, according to Deuteronomy 18:22, only prophets from God give predictions that consistently are 100 percent correct. The medium’s surprise to see Samuel strongly suggests that God brought up Samuel in an unprecedented miracle for the specific purpose of rebuking Saul. If it was Samuel himself then we see that he was recognizable, had a mouth with which to speak, ears to hear, eyes to see. He was not disembodied. He had the usual faculties after he had died. Therefore, depending on your view of this story, it either proves that people who have died before Christ’s resurrection had bodies with the same capabilities as when they were alive or it does not disprove it.

    Clearly the bodies that these people had after death are not the bodies that they died with. They have temporary bodies that God gives to them until they receive their final imperishable, spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). Otherwise, those whose bodies were cremated or destroyed upon death would suffer as disembodied spirits because their earthly body was gone.

    SUMMARY

    Examining the characteristics of a parable we see that the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man do not meet any of the criteria.

    ·         There is no front and back side.

    ·         There is no hidden meaning.

    ·         The presentation is different.

    ·         There is no comparison.

    ·         It is not called a parable.

    ·         A character in the story, Lazarus, has a proper name.

    The arguments for why this cannot be a real story were addressed.

    ·         Same beginning as Luke 16:1 which is a parable.

    ·         It is after an Egyptian story.

    ·         How can there be joy in Heaven if they can see their damned relatives in Hell?

    ·         How did the Rich Man recognize Lazarus?

    ·         It teaches that the rich go to Hell while the poor go to Heaven.

    ·         Scripture never teaches that it is an actual place.

    ·         There are no empty graves.

    Therefore, the conclusion is that the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man was an actual, true story and not a parable. This enables us to interpret it as providing important truths about the afterlife and the destinies of all peoples.

     

    1 Stephen L. Wailes, The Rich Man and Lazarus on the Reformation Stage: A Contribution to the Social History of German Drama, (Susquehanna University Press, 1997), 12.

    2 Wailes, ibid, 13.

    3 Edited by Walter W. Powell, Richard Steinberg, The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, (Yale University Press, 2006).

    4 Powell, ibid, 21.

    5 All the Parables From the Bible, accessed July 12, 2018, http://access-jesus.com/parables-of-jesus-bible-list-html/, (January 17, 2016);

    Bob Deffinbaugh, “52. The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:14-31),” Luke: The Gospel of the Gentiles, accessed July 17, 2018, https://bible.org/seriespage/52-rich-man-and-lazarus-luke-1614-31, (June 24, 2004);

    Bryan T. Huie, Lazarus and the Rich Man, http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Lazarus-byHuie.htm (January 9, 1998);

    Commentary on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, accessed July 19, 2018, http://orthodoxinfo.com/death/theo_laz.aspx;

    Darris McNeely, “Lessons From the Parables,” Lazarus and the Rich Man: Attitudes and Consequences, accessed July 9, 2018, https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/lessons-from-the-parables-lazarus-and-the-rich-man-attitudes-and-consequences, (June 26, 2014);

    Dennis Crews, The Rich Man and Lazarus, accessed July 12, 2018, https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/71/t/the-rich-man-and-lazarus;

    Gospels of Jesus, accessed July 24, 2018, https://kwing.christiansonnet.org/courses/misc/parables-list_e.htm;

    Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, Meyer’s Commentary on the New Testament, Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke, (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1983), 475.

    Edited John F. Walvoord, Roy B. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Victor Books a division of SP Publications, Inc., 1984), 247.

    Marcus Tidmarsh, List of Parables, accessed July 12, 2018, http://www.learningscriptures.info/biblical-parables/list-of-parables.htm, (2018);

    Martin G. Collins, Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Part One), accessed July 12, 2018, https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BS/k/928/The-Parable-of-Lazarus-and-Rich-Man-Part-One.htm, (July 2004);

    Lazarus and the Rich Man parable, accessed July 13, 2018, http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/rich-man-and-lazarus-parable.html;

    Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Luke, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 252.

    List of Parables In the Bible, accessed July 19, 2018, http://biblesymbol.com/list-of-parables/; Cornelus Postell, List of Parables, https://classroom.synonym.com/list-of-parables-12082667.html, (September 29, 2017);

     Edited Michael Rydelnik, Michael VanLaningham, The Moody Bible Commentary, (Moody Publishers, 2014),1584.

     “Our Lord’s Parables,” Blue Letter Bible, accessed July 9, 2018, https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/pnt/pnt06.cfm;

    Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, accessed July 9, 2018, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/the-fourfold-gospel/by-sections/parable-of-the-rich-man-and-lazarus.html, (2018);

    “Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-31),” The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: Luke, (IVP Academic, April 2, 2010). (“The account is an example story, not a parable” but since it does not classify it as a real story it is included in the parable section especially since the title of this section is “Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.”);

    Paul Ingram, List of Parables, accessed July 11, 2018, http://www.katapi.org.uk/4Gospels/Parables.htm, (2004);

    Ralph F. Wilson, “#71. The Rich Man and Lazarus,” JesusWalk: Luke’s Gospel, (Luke 16:19-31), accessed August 9, 2018, http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm, (2018);

     Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments, Volume Three, Part One Matthew-John, (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 295.

     “Ron Graham, List of the Parables, accessed July 10, 2018, https://www.simplybible.com/f660-list-of-parables-jesus-told.htm, (2001);

    The Parables of Jesus,” Christian Bible Reference Site, accessed July 9, 2018, https://www.christianbiblereference.org/jparable.htm;

    The Parables of Jesus Christ, accessed July 9, 2018, http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Parable.html;

    The Parables In The Gospels, accessed July 17, 2018, http://www.centuryone.com/parables.html, (2003);

    Warren Prestidge, Life, Death and Destiny, (lulu.com, 2010); Henry Buis, The Teaching of the New Testament, accessed July 17, 2018,  http://www.ccel.us/buis.ch3.html.

    What does the parable of Lazarus and the rich man mean?, accessed July 17, 2018,  https://www.ucg.org/bible-study-tools/bible-questions-and-answers/what-does-the-parable-of-lazarus-and-the-rich-man-mean, (November 9, 2010);

    6 Edited by Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson, Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Allan Menzies, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, (Veritatis Splendor Publications; First Edition, May 21, 2014), 411.

    Exposition of Luke 16:19-31, accessed August 3, 2018, http://www.bible.ca/su-hades-luke16.htm#mainline;

    7 Edited by Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson, Arthur Cleveland Coxe, Allan Menzies, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I: The Apostolic Fathers, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, (Veritatis Splendor Publications; First Edition, May 21, 2014), 411.

    8 Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, #71. The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), accessed August 3, 2018, http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm.

    9 Lois Malcolm, Commentary on Luke 16:19-31, accessed August 4, 2018, accessed July 9, 2018, https://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=1784.

    10 E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1981), 202.

    11 Ellis, ibid, 202.

    12 J. W. McGarvey and Philip Y. Pendleton, Harmony of the Four Gospels, accessed July 2, 2018,  https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/the-fourfold-gospel/by-sections/parable-of-the-rich-man-and-lazarus.html

    13 Easton, M.G., accessed August 10, 2018, “Parable,” Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Thomas Nelson, 1897).

    Kenneth Boa, IV. Literary Forms in the Bible, accessed August 9, 2018, https://bible.org/seriespage/iv-literary-forms-bible, (May 5, 2010).

    KJV Dictionary Definition: parable, accessed August 9, 2018, https://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/parable.html.

    List of Parables, accessed August 9, 2018, http://www.learningscriptures.info/biblical-parables/list-of-parables.htm.

    Literary Devices, accessed August 9, 2018, https://literarydevices.net/parable/.

    The Parables of Jesus, accessed August 9, 2018, https://www.christianbiblereference.org/jparable.htm.

    The Purpose of the Parables, accessed August 10, 2018, https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/purpose-parables/.

    Dr. Ralph F. Wilson, #71. The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), accessed July 26, 2018,http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/16_19-31.htm.

    Rashada, Literary Forms of the Gospels, accessed July 25, 2018, https://quizlet.com/93202891/literary-forms-of-the-gospels-flash-cards/.

    14 Easton, M.G., “Parable,” Easton’s Bible Dictionary, (Thomas Nelson, 1897).

    15 Seed (Mark 4:26-29); Mustard Seed (Matt. 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, Luke 13:18-19); Sower (Matt. 13:3-9, Mark 4:3-9, Luke 8:5-8); Lamp under a Basket (Matt. 5:14-15, Mark 4:21-23, Luke 8:16-18); Rich Fool (Luke 12:16-21); Clothe & Wineskins (Matt. 9:16-17, Mark 2:21-22, Luke 5:36-39); Tares among Wheat (Matt. 13:24-30); Barren Fig Tree (Luke 13:6-9); Leaven (Matt. 13:33, Luke 13:20-21); Hidden Treasure (Matt. 13:44); Costly Pearl (Matt. 13:45-46); Dragnet (Matt. 13:47-50); The Lost Sheep (Matt. 18:12-14, Luke 15:4-6); Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-9); Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32); Unjust Judge (Luke 18:1-5); Pharisees & Publican (Luke 18:9-14); Two Sons (Matt. 21:28-32); Wicked vine-growers (Matt. 21:33-41, Mark 12:1-9, Luke 20:9-16); Great Banquet (Matt. 22:1-14, Luke 14:15-24); Budding Fig Tree (Matt. 24:32-35, Mark 13:28-31, Luke 21:29-33); Ready to Serve the Master (Mark 13:34-37, Luke 12:35-40); Faithful vs. Unfaithful Servant (Matt. 24:45-51, Luke 12:42-48); Talents (Matt. 25:14-30, Luke 19:12-27); Wedding Feast (Luke 14:7-14); Old & New Treasure (Matt. 13:52)

    16 Two debtors (Luke 7:41-42); Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37); Good Friend (Luke 11:5-8); Wise & Foolish Builders (Matt. 7:24-27, Luke 6:48-49); Strong Man (Matt. 12:29, Mark 3:27, Luke 11:21-22); Counting the Cost (Luke 14:28-33); Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-9); Master  & Servant (Luke 17:7-10); Sheep & Goats (Matt. 25:31-46)

    17 The name Lazarus in the Bible, accessed July 2, 2018, http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Lazarus.html.

    18 Agabus; Agrippa I, aka King Herod aka Herod; Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene; Andrew; Anna; Annas; Apollos; Aquila; Archelaus; Barabbas; Barnabas; Bartholomew; Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus; Caesar  Augustus; Caiaphas; Cleopas; Clopas, husband of Mary; Dionysius the Areopagite; Elizabeth; Epaphras; Felix governor of Judea; Herod Antipas, called “Herod the Tetrarch” or “Herod”; Herod the Great; Herodias; Jairus; James the Just, brother of Jesus; James the son of Alphaeus; James the son of Zebedee; James, father of Judas; Jesus; Joanna; John the Baptist; John the son of Zededee; Joseph of Arimathea; Joseph, father of Jesus; Joses, aka Joseph, brother of Jesus; Judas; Judas Iscariot; Jude; Jude, brother of  Jesus; Lazarus (Luke 16); Lazarus of Bethany; Luke; Lysanias; Malchus; Mark; Martha; Mary Magdalene; Mary, mother of James and Joseph; Mary, mother of Jesus; Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus; Mary,  wife of Clopas; Matthew, aka Levi; Matthias; Nathanael; Nicodemus; Onesimus; Paul (Saul); Peter aka  Simon aka Simon Peter aka Simon Barjona; Phanuel, father of Anna; Philemon; Philip; Philip, Herod’s brother; Philip, son of Herod the Tetrarch; Pontius Pilate; Priscilla; Quirinius; Rufus, son of Simon of Cyrene; Salome; Silas; Simeon; Simon of Cyrene; Simon the leper; Simon the Pharisee; Simon the Zealot; Simon, brother of Jesus; Simon, father of Judas Iscariot; Sopater; Stephen, first martyr; Susanna; Thaddaeus; Theophilus; Thomas, aka Didymus; Tiberius Caesar; Timothy; Titus; Zaccheus; Zacharias; Zechariah

    19 Aaron; Abel; Abiathar; Abijah; Abraham; Asher; David; Elijah; Elisha; Isaac; Isaiah; Jacob; Jeremiah; Jonah; Joseph; Moses; Naaman; Noah; Solomon; Zechariah, son of Berechiah

     

    20 William Robert West, If the Soul or Spirit Is Immortal, There Can Be No Resurrection from the Dead, (Author House, Third Edition, September 2006), 229.

    21 Brown-Driver-Briggs, “4912. mashal,” accessed August 2, 2018, https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4912.htm.

    22 Here is the 35 of 38: Numbers 23:7Numbers 23:18Numbers 24:3Numbers 24:15Numbers 24:20, Numbers 24:21Numbers 24:23Deuteronomy 28:371 Samuel 10:121 Samuel 24:131 Kings 4:321 Kings 9:72 Chronicles 7:20Job 27:1Job 29:1Psalm 44:14Psalm 49:4Psalm 69:11Psalm 78:2Proverbs 1:1Proverbs 1:6Proverbs 10:1Proverbs 25:1, Proverbs 26:7Proverbs 26:9Ecclesiastes 12:9Isaiah 14:4Jeremiah 24:9Ezekiel 12:22Ezekiel 12:23Ezekiel 14:8Ezekiel 18:2Ezekiel 18:3, Micah 2:4Habakkuk 2:6. Here are the three: Ezekiel 17:2, Ezekiel 20:49, Ezekiel 24:3.

    23 G. B. Caird, Saint Luke, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd, 1968), 191.

    24 R. B. Bauckham, The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses (Supplements to Novum Testamentum), (Society of Biblical Literature, January 1, 1998), 97-118.

    25 Bryan T. Huie, Lazarus and the Rich Man, accessed August 11, 2018, http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Lazarus-byHuie.htm (January 9, 1998).

    26 Huie, ibid.

    27 E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1981), 157.

    28 E. Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke, (London: S.P.C.K., E.T.1984), 261.

    29 “They are high as the heavens, what can you do? Deeper than Sheol, what can you know?” To contrast as high as the heavens to a grave which is only a few feet deep is out of balance. Sheol would have to be similarly very deep.

    30 Dennis Crews, The Rich Man and Lazarus, accessed August 16, 2018,https://www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/71/t/the-rich-man-and-lazarus.

    31 Ron Abel, Wrested Scriptures: A Christadelphian Handbook of Suggested Explanations to Difficult Passages, (The Christadelphians), 107.

    32 Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection?: A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, (Biblical Perspectives, 2001), 174.

     

    FINAL EXPLANATION

    It is important that the Bible be treated respectfully and accurately. To determine that a passage is to be understood allegorically or as a parable rather than literally usually results in a different interpretation. We see that problem with the Book of Revelation. Those who perceive the events and characters to be allegorical generally have an amillennial viewpoint. In contrast, those who have a predominately literal interpretation will more likely result in a premillennial viewpoint. We must approach Scripture with a well-informed understanding as to what literal type it is. Lazarus and the Rich Man provides great depth of revelation regarding the afterlife if viewed as a real story. But when viewed as a parable then the focus tends to be regarding the use of money. I believe that we should have an accurate understanding of how this passage should be interpreted so that it can give significant and trustworthy insight into our eternal destinations. Also, viewing this as a real story will, I believe, further honor Jesus Christ as the first-fruit.


    ^back to top

  2. What does the Bible say about In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)?

    Proverbs 13:12 reads, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick.”

    Infertility is a growing problem. Data from the 2004 US Census Bureau estimates that 2.23% of the population or 6,585,654 people are infertile. Perhaps a more realistic view is a 7% prevalence rate of infertility for couples trying to conceive for two years. This grows to 8.5% if measured after one year1. The infertility rate seems to be increasing.

    The choices range from giving up to trying a procedure such as In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) in which sperm and eggs are combined outside the womb with the hope that fertilization will occur and then these embryos will be inserted into a womb where they will grow to a normal, healthy birth. Due to infertility in one of the spouses sometimes the sperm or the eggs must be donated.

    So what should a Christian couple who is struggling to have a child do? In several instances I have been consulted by Christian couples who were having problems conceiving. These couples can easily find themselves conflicted, depressed, humiliated, angry, and withdrawn. Unfortunately most Christians that are offering advice to these couples are woefully unstudied on the subject and often offer nothing more than their own overbearing opinions. The emotions on both sides can be intense, dogmatic, and hypercritical. I have seen friendships destroyed because of this subject.

    Obviously, the Bible does not directly address IVF since the technology did not exist when it was written. Therefore, to determine if IVF is considered moral (i.e., right, Biblical, in God’s will) or immoral (wrong, un-Biblical, out of God’s will) we must examine what might be close examples or principals. However, because of the lack of a direct command or passage addressing this issue we must be careful not to go beyond the bounds of what the Bible does say especially by pre-biasing with our own opinions.

    To be honest up front, this article takes the stand that IVF is a viable option that does not violate Biblical principles.

    Let us first examine arguments against IVF.

    Arguments against IVF and responses

    “The embryos which are created will be destroyed and so that is murder.”

    ChristiaNet.com found that 88% of its members believe that life begins at conception2. Another poll3 reported that 59% of all people believe that life begins at conception. Therefore most people believe that embryos which are destroyed are murdered. However, if the embryos are not destroyed but are donated so that they can help another infertile couple then this argument is not valid. Just because some embryos are destroyed does not mean that; therefore, all embryos not used immediately will be destroyed. To argue this is wrong simply because this is not true. There are a number of organizations that make unused embryos available for other couples. One is Nightlight Christian Adoptions and the Snowflakes Frozen Embryo Adoption Program.

    Nor is it valid to argue that because some people and clinics destroy their unused embryos that it; therefore, wrong to create any embryos through IVF. Because some music is wrong should we, therefore, ban all music? Because some people drive recklessly and kill people should all driving be deemed immoral? If we banned everything that has been abused then there would not be much left. The solution to abuses of IVF is not an extreme, unbending dogma but rather to work to ensure that such abuses are avoided.

    Also, if some embryos that are implanted do not ultimately produce children then it does not mean that they were murdered. It is estimated that around 25% of all natural pregnancies end in miscarriage. So whether conceived naturally or through IVF some embryos do not survive. “Having a child through IVF is selfish” There is nothing unbiblical about desiring to have a child. Rather, throughout the Bible there is the indication that God wants women to bear children.

    “There shall be no one miscarrying or barren in your land; I will fulfill the number of your days.” – Exodus 22:26

    “You shall be blessed above all peoples; there will be no male or female barren among you or among your cattle.” – Deuteronomy 7:14

    “He makes the barren woman abide in the house as a joyful mother of children. Praise the LORD!” – Psalm 113:9

    “Shout for joy, O barren one, you who have borne no child; break forth into joyful shouting and cry aloud, you who have not travailed; for the sons of the desolate one will be more numerous than the sons of the married woman," says the LORD.” – Isaiah 54:1, Galatians 4:27

    What is the evidence that people who have children naturally are selfless but people who have children through IVF are selfish? This is an artificial and judgmental argument with no evidence. What about poor people who naturally have many children just so that when the children are old enough they can be sent out to work to bring money into the family? Is that not selfish? What about people who have children just so that they can be like everyone else? Or people who have children just so that they can pass on the family name or so that they can get more money from the government?

    Selfishness is an attitude, not a method.

    “Having a child through IVF can be idolatrous”

    This argument is stated on the internet4 by the following:

    "And for the Christian there is an even deeper challenge to face. If your desire for a child is so great that nothing is allowed to stand in the way of it, then you have exalted that desire above God. ‘Give me a child or I die’ is a fundamentally godless attitude. It is the same as to say, ‘My whole good is wrapped up in my having a child. My life has no meaning, and there can be for me no happiness without one.’ But when we say that, we have exalted the wanted child to the place in our affections only God may rightly enjoy. Our whole good is wrapped up in God and His will for us, not in our own notions of what is good for us.”

    This argument has clearly created a straw man. It is assuming these extreme attitudes are prevalent in all infertile couples who use IVF. Most infertile Christian couples would not say any of the following:

  3. “I want a child so badly that nothing will stand in the way of it, even God” For example, the overwhelming majority of Christian men will not hire another man to have sex with his wife if that is what it takes for her to get pregnant.
  4. “Give me a child or I die.” This is quoted from Genesis 30:1, yet how many women today actually say or believe this? If all avenues fail then there is grief but not suicide.
  5. “My whole good is wrapped up in having a child.” More likely the attitude is, “A child would bring me much joy and be a recipient of my love, but he/she is not the end-all of my happiness. Yes, I might feel emptier without a child but there are a lot of other things in life.” It is rarely, if ever, an all or nothing attitude.
  6. “My life has no meaning… without one.” How many Christians actually believe that without a child their lives are meaningless?

  7. It is easy to see how this writer created the most extreme attitudes possible, attributed them to all couples who are considering IVF, and then proceeded to show how sinful they are so that we should conclude that IVF is wrong.

    Why does a couple who buys lots of ovulation kits and thermometers and has sex at all hours and times to try to hit maximum ovulation not fall into the same category as being idolatrous because they are doing everything that they can to have a child? It is because the real argument that is being presented is claiming that these attitudes will only exist in a couple attempting IVF? Why this argument is false is because the problem is not method but attitude and that can be good or bad regardless of method. It can easily be argued that many couples who want to have a child through IVF are more selfless, humble, and righteous than many couples who have children naturally. ‘Those who use IVF are not trusting God” Those who advocate this argument should then look someone with malignant cancer in the eyes and tell them to forego treatment and “trust God.” Do the people who advocate this argument always trust God for their finances or do they seek better jobs? Do they throw away their clocks and watches and trust God to guide them throughout the day or do they keep track of time?

    Is there any verse in the Bible that states that infertile women should simply trust God and do nothing else about it?

    Actually God in the Bible from beginning to end tells people to do something to accomplish a purpose rather than to simply pray and do nothing or very little. When Moses stood at the Red Sea with the Israelites when the Egyptians were pursuing them he said, “Do not fear! Stand by and see the salvation of the LORD which He will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you will never see them again forever. The LORD will fight for you while you keep silent.” (Exodus 14:13-14) What was God’s response in the very next verse? Did God approve of this seemingly great show of faith? No. God rebuked Moses and said, “Why are you crying out to Me? Tell the sons of Israel to go forward.” God wanted them to take action; He wanted them to move and to go forward.

    There are many instances in the Bible where God had people do something unconventional in order to accomplish something supernatural. To retrieve the axe head that fell into the water Elisha had to first throw in a stick (2 Kings 6:1-7). Naaman had to dip seven times in the Jordan River to cleanse himself of leprosy (2 Kings 5:1-14). To get the stronger goats and sheep to be striped, speckled, and spotted, Jacob put fresh rods of poplar and almond and plane trees out (Genesis 30:25-43). Elijah divided the waters of the Jordan by striking the river with his mantle (2 Kings 2:8). And the list goes on. It is likely that nothing miraculous would have occurred in any of these situations if the people merely sat around and prayed. It was only when they took action, no matter how seemingly incongruous, did God then work. Trusting God is not synonymous with doing nothing, but rather with taking action.

    James 1:27

    Somewhat incredibility even James 1:27 has been presented as a verse against IVF: “Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

    This verse categorically has nothing to do with issue of surrogacy, IVF, or conception. It is merely stating that we should especially help those who have nothing to give back to us and two clear examples of these types of people are orphans and widows. This is similar to Matthew 25: 36, 43 where Jesus instructs us to help the helpless. In neither of these passages is conception in mind and to force it into these Scriptures is to do injustice to the context.

    This verse in the original Greek literally reads, “religion Clean and undefiled before God and Father this is, visit orphans and widows in the affliction of them, unspotted himself to keep from the world.” – The Interlinear Bible.

    Is this verse addressing priorities?

    Nowhere in the Greek does this verse indicate any sense of priority. It does not say, “first visit orphans and widows.” It is merely stating that we should visit orphans and widows but not necessarily before anyone else. Matthew 25:43 states, “I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'” No one claims that this verse commands that we should consider strangers, the naked, the sick, and prisoners before any other group of people (including perhaps orphans and widows?) so why should we apply the same logic to James 1:27?

    Furthermore, to present the argument that James 1:27 is stating that we should give our attention first to orphans and widows rather than to conceiving children through IVF also allows that exact same argument to apply to children born through sex. If we should not have children born through IVF because we need to take care of orphans first then we should, likewise, not have children born through sex until we have first taken care of orphans and widows. The contention that we should take care of orphans first and not have children through IVF is arguing priority and not method of conception, neither of which this verse addresses.

    Does this verse have any sense of negation?

    For this verse to have a sense of negation it would read something like “visit orphans and widows instead of…” The Greek contains no sense of this.

    Therefore, this Scripture does not place one group of people (orphans and widows) over any other group (such as children conceived through IVF).

    “Those who are infertile should accept it as God’s will”

    Do we condemn the person who has cancer to accept it as God’s will and not seek treatment? Do we quote Hebrews 9:27, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment…” at these cancer patients and tell them that it is God’s will for them to die and cancer is His method to end their lives? Why is it morally ethical for a Christian to seek the best and most modern treatments to cure a disease such as cancer but is forbidden to do the same when the disease is infertility? Both are physical or physiological based problems. Unless the cause of either is obvious (smoking causing cancer or an abortion causing infertility) I would be very hesitant to attribute either condition to sin.

    Christians like everyone else do things to better their lives. They move into better neighborhoods, buy better houses, get better jobs, go on better vacations, etc. So why when someone who is infertile wants to have a child and better herself she is forbidden to do so? Is this not hypocritical?

    It is presumptuous to assume that because someone is infertile that therefore it is God’s will for them to never have children. Where does the Bible ever state this? Should we never use life-saving methods on someone who is dying because that is artificially keeping them alive? If someone breaks their leg then should we assume that God wants them to limp for the rest of their life? If someone’s house is destroyed then should we assume that God wants them to live monastically and never own a house again? So why is infertility different? Does the Bible classify it as different or is that merely man’s opinion?

    In fact, God warns against classifying things as wrong that are not stated as such in the Bible. “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch! (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.” – Colossians 2:21-23. In this passage God warns against setting up decrees that negate actions outside of what the Bible states. They may appear wise but really are the man-made. Does teaching against IVF possibly fall into this category?

    Another Scripture along these same lines is Isaiah 5:20, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

    We tread on hypocrisy and presumption when we use circumstances to emphatically state God’s will especially when applying it to the lives of others. Many times in the Bible God put an obstacle in the path of someone and only when they kept going did He bless them (see Israel and the Red Sea, the paralytic who was lowered through the roof, the Shunammite woman’s dead son, etc). Why must we accept infertility as God’s will and just give up? If the paralytic, blind men, lepers all just presumed that their condition was God’s will to accept and did nothing about it then we would not have the miracle stories in the Bible and they would have died paralyzed, blind, and leprous.

    Arguments for IVF

    Surrogacy and Israel (Jacob), Leah, Bilhah, Zilpah, and Rachel

    Israel (Jacob) had two wives and each of those wives had a handmaiden. All four of them had children by Israel as follows:

  8. Leah (elder wife): Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun
  9. Bilhah (Rachel’s slave): Dan, Naphtali
  10. Zilpah (Leah’s slave): Gad, Asher
  11. Rachel (younger wife): Joseph, Benjamin

  12. From Israel’s children came the twelve tribes of Israel.

    Of the twelve children born to Israel four were by surrogates. That leaves eight children born to his two wives. It is important to note that there are not eight tribes of Israel; there are twelve. God included the four from the surrogates just as equally as the eight from the wives. God did not consider them to be illegitimate and sinful and cast them aside. Instead, He blessed them equally. In fact, in Genesis 49 Israel blesses three of the four children born to the surrogates (Naphtali, Gad, and Asher) so they were included equally in the blessings.

    There are many lists of the Twelve Tribes in the Bible and there are some differences. For example, some versions add Ephraim and Manasseh while eliminating two of the originals. However, every list in the Bible contains Simeon, Judah, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin. Notice of the eight that are in every list three of them are the child born to the surrogates.

    Two Bible passages help illustrate the equality of the twelve sons. Genesis 48:4 states, “and He said to me, 'Behold, I will make you fruitful and numerous, and I will make you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession.'” Since each of twelve tribes inherited the land they were all equally considered Israel’s descendants; there was no distinction between those from his wives and those from the surrogates.

    The second passage is Genesis 33:5. “He [Esau] lifted his eyes and saw the women and the children, and said, ‘Who are these with you?’ So he [Jacob] said, ‘The children whom God has graciously given your servant.’” Esau saw all of Jacob’s (Israel’s) children and asked who they were. Jacob’s response was that they were “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.” Jacob made no distinction between the children born from his wives versus those born from the surrogates; they were all from God.

    The conclusion is that of the twelve children of Israel the four from surrogates were treated as equally as the children from the wives in blessings and as being the heads of the tribes.

    Psalm 127:3

    “Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, the fruit of the womb is a reward.”

    This Scripture tells us that God considers all children to be a gift (some translations read “blessing”) from Him. Reading this verse carefully, the only two prerequisites to qualify as this gift is that the child is human and was born from a womb. IVF meets both of these prerequisites.

    Should you want to argue that the word “fruit” is referring to eggs rather than the result of the womb (birth) and so disqualifies IVF then examine other similar verses that use the word “fruit” in this same manner.

    Deuteronomy 7:13, “"He will love you and bless you and multiply you; He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your new wine and your oil, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock, in the land which He swore to your forefathers to give you.” Ground does not produce eggs, plants produce seeds that are buried in the ground and then sprout forth out of the ground. The “fruit of your ground” is what comes forth from the ground even though the seed is produced elsewhere.

    Deuteronomy 28:4, “Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock.” This follows the same reasoning as for Deuteronomy 7:13.

    Jesus’ birth

    Technically, Jesus was not genetically related to his father.

    Psalm 113:9

    “He makes the barren woman abide in the house as a joyful mother of children. Praise the LORD!”

    This Scripture does not say that this woman was barren because of sin. Nor does it say that she should have accepted her condition and remained barren. It does not hint at condemnation or judgment. But it does give us a command. Lest we forget, when God gives children to those who are struggling to have children our response, as God commands, should be to “Praise the LORD!”

    Conclusion

    I believe that based on Scripture no one can definitely claim that the Bible commands against IVF nor do I believe that it even implies that IVF is wrong.

    I believe that the Bible indicates that God approves of it as a means to overcome a tragic situation and to bless a couple with children. IVF does not usurp God since it is still in His sovereign providence whether or not a woman becomes pregnant. When a couple is given the gift of a child by God I believe that our response should not be to judge based on man’s opinions but to agree with the psalmist and “Praise the LORD!”

    A Final Question

    Should an unmarried woman use IVF to get pregnant?


    Obviously the best situation for a child to be born into is a married couple with a solid, loving foundation. However, “best” does not preclude everything else and make everything else wrong.

    The only Scriptural situation that possibly touches on this is Mary. She was impregnated by a method that was apart from normal sex (she was still a virgin after the act was completed) and the father of her baby was someone other than her (soon to be) husband. There are two interesting aspects of this.

    First, she was not married when this occurred. God impregnated an unmarried woman. You may try to argue that in those times engagement was more than engagement is now and was actually closer to a marriage commitment. But even if that is true the actual fact remains that she was unmarried. Whether she was close to married is not relevant; the fact is that when the Holy Spirit came upon Mary she was not married. Of course since God is omniscient (all knowing), He knew that she was going to marry Joseph and so would not be a single mother, but once again that does not alter the fact that while she was unmarried she was impregnated. Therefore, no one can say that an unmarried woman being impregnated apart from sex is wrong; otherwise, God would have sinned.

    Second, though the Bible does not address what eventually happened to Joseph most commentators believe that he died sometime between Jesus’ teen years and when He was crucified. God knew this. If, and we do not know this, Joseph died when Jesus was still a teen then God knew that Mary would have to raise Him as a single parent and He had no problem with that.

    This situation does not, of course, give full endorsement of unmarried women becoming pregnant using IVF, but it does indicate that it is not necessarily wrong.

    References:

    1 “Reproductive Infertility: Prevalence, Causes, Trends and Treatments”, Parliamentary Research Branch, Library of Parliament, PRB 00-32B, http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/EB-e/prb0032-e.pdf.
    2 http://www.lifenews.com/nat2870.html
    3 WND/Zogby - http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.cfm?ID=18208
    4 http://eis.net.au/~paulh/ei3hp.htm


    ^back to top

  13. Participating in the Bible


        Why does the Bible contain so many stories and why are they so powerful? One reason is because they call us to participate. They ask us either to walk in the shoes of one of the characters or at least to engage in some aspect of what is occurring.

        Very few of us can completely relate to the paralytic who is carried around on a makeshift stretcher in Mark 2. But probably all of us can connect to some element such as his fear, his sense of hopelessness, his coming to Jesus with hesitant expectations, or his unforgiveness. Instead, we may be one of his friends: we are those who are always bringing the afflicted to Jesus for spiritual or emotional strength. We are someone whom others often rely on. Or we see ourselves in the crowd watching God doing something great.

        Rules tell us to obey; stories ask us to participate. When we read a story we do more than intellectually comprehend the events; we involve our emotions and our spirit. This is why the Bible is not merely a book of lists or commandments. God does not simply want us to obey Him (although that is certainly true) but He also wants us to participate with Him in righteousness and in glorifying Himself. Matthew 28:19-20 starts with a command, “"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you,” but ends with participation, “and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

        God does not merely tell us that we have a sin nature; He gives us the story of Adam and Eve and says, “Do you see yourself there?” He does not just tell us that He died for our sins; He vividly relates the crown of thorns, the mockings, and the nails being driven in His hands and asks, “Do you realize that it was just as much your hand that held that hammer?” And instead of simply saying, “And Jesus rose bodily from the dead and is alive forevermore,” He cooks fish on a beach (John 21) and asks us to sit on the driftwood and eat that fish and know that it is real. We see the nail holes with Thomas; we rejoice with the widow whose son Elijah raised from the dead.

        God wants more than church members. This is why He refers to us as brothers and sisters and as sons and daughters. We are the bride of Christ. And what does He ask us to call Him? Is it King, Most Sovereign Creator, Most High and Holy One? He is all of these things, but what He asks us to call Him is “Abba! Father!”

        The Bible is not a book of rules; it is a book about relationships. Reading about Joseph we can say, “Yes, I too have been treated badly by family. But God is faithful.” In Paul we might relate to his persecution but, again, God is always there. We might see ourselves in impetuous Peter or confused Ruth or frustrated Moses. We know that these were not cardboard characters. They were not sketches. They were real people, in real situation, with a real God. And we can participate with them and ultimately know that God is with us also and always.

    ^back to top

  14. The Mulberry Tree

       
    Published in Alive Now, (November – December 2005), pages 6-9

        For several years I struggled with anger and bitterness. Someone whom I had considered to be a close friend had betrayed me and did not even care about the effect that it had on me. I fumed about what had happened, played it over and over until that spot in my mind almost wore out, and finally concluded that his being swallowed by an earthquake (a not unbiblical concept) was far too quick for my satisfaction. I knew that this was not good for me, but I could not let it go. That is, until I realized that more truthfully it was that I did not want to let it go. He had sinned against me but the bigger problem now was my sin of unforgiveness. I needed to release myself from this sin. But how? – How could I forgive?

        There is a large tree in my backyard and I built a bench that encircles it. Oftentimes I take my Bible and books out there and study God’s word. I turned to Luke 17 where the disciples cried out in verse 5, “Increase our faith!” What did they feel was so impossible to do? In verses 1 – 4 Jesus told them that they need to always forgive—even the multiple offender. “Increase my faith!” 

        His response is in verse 6, “If you had faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you.” The tree that is mentioned here is probably the black mulberry. The rabbis thought that its roots could remain in the ground for 600 years. Clearly, this was something that had dug itself down deep and would be hard to move. That seemed very familiar. But what did Jesus say that was needed to move it? A hundred men with ropes? A giant bulldozer? A sharp axe, a shovel and about 100 years? No, I just needed something as small as a mustard seed. What Jesus is emphasizing here is that in order to forgive, my faith does not have to be great; it just has to be genuine and to have its foundation in a great God.

        This was not a case of “Let go and let God” but rather was quite the opposite. I had to decide that I needed and wanted to do what was right. I first had to want to forgive (not see him suffer, not want him to feel the same hurt as me, not that he better think twice about hurting me again) and also I needed to fervently pray for the power of God to forgive. The first was a matter of repentance; the second was believing a promise.

        2 Corinthians 9:8 says, “And God is able to make all grace abound to you, that always having all sufficiency in everything, you may have an abundance for every good deed.” Notice how many words denoting completeness or fulfillment Paul uses in this one verse: “all grace,” “abound,” “always having,” “all sufficiency,” “in everything,” “an abundance,” “every good deed.” And, of course, it starts with the one ultimate word for completeness—“God.” So for any righteous act, because God did it first He provides me with an example and because of grace I am equipped to do it.

        As I was sitting under that large tree I was thinking how hurt can dig its roots deep into my life and it may even feel like its been there for 600 years. And it may feel as though there is nothing that I can do to extract those roots from out of my heart and my thoughts. But Jesus says that it only takes the smallest amount of faith to do this. And you know what? This gives hope. I can, by the grace of God, forgive anyone; no matter how deep, no matter how long it has been there. I need to pray, “God, give me the desire to forgive. Give me the power to forgive.” I can forgive others the way that God forgives me. And when I do this my life turns from bondage to freedom.

        Finally after I closed up all of my books I thought about how Jesus said that the mulberry tree is cast into the sea and I pictured this drama. And then the verse in Micah 7:19 came to mind, “He will again have compassion on us; He will tread our iniquities under foot. Yes, You will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.”

    ^back to top

  15. Seeing Jesus Christ through the Dust


        God used two intertwined opposites to draw me to Himself. One was a real situation: I asked a woman out for a date and she turned me down. The other was imagined consequences: no woman will ever want to go out with me, my friends will snicker behind my back, I’ll always be a loser. Because of what “could be” I got depressed and asked my college roommate, who was a Christian, if I could go to church with him that coming Sunday. The rejection was the trigger but the driving force that pushed me to God was what I thought might happen.

        How we respond to our anticipations and possibilities is oftentimes more visceral than the realities that surround us. They can elbow their way past what actually occurred and fill the room with their conceived scenarios and stories.

        God wired us to respond more deeply and broadly to stories than to naked facts. Yes, a fact can change our lives: Jesus Christ died to pay for my sins. But a vivid story wraps itself around us and does not let go for days, sometimes even for a lifetime. “My time is near… One of you will betray Me… My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me… Behold, you have now heard the blasphemy… Then they spat in His face and beat Him with their fists… Crucify Him!... They came to a place called Golgotha… It was the third hour when they crucified Him… The robbers who had been crucified with Him were also insulting Him… Father, forgive them; for they know not what they are doing… And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.” This story draws us to a Person. We can see Jesus with blood and dirt caked on His lips as He stumbles while carrying the cross, we reach out and grab His arm, we feel His flesh in our trembling hand, and we look into His watery eyes when He turns His head to see who touched Him. In the comfort of our room we shudder and breathe heavily. We are more than convicted, we are affected. This is what stories can do. Our minds lift us beyond rock hard facts and plunge us into swirling waters of creation and then demands that we respond.

        Who, Christian and non-Christian, does not recognize “The Good Samaritan” or “The Prodigal Son”? Both fictitious and yet so powerful that they have permeated the world.

        God gives us Jesus Christ through the Gospels. He does not want us to see these stories from the top of a building but from the dust of its streets.

        As we share the Good News we should do more than introduce facts in a multi-step presentation. We should introduce the person of Jesus Christ through story and how He changed our own lives. We need more than words that will fall dull and empty; we want to create pictures that will penetrate and spark recognition both with self and with God.

        Eventually I did marry and now have two daughters and I learned that no one in God is a loser. But what God used most to bring me to Himself was contrasting my own created despair with the vivid reality of the One who walked and died and rose alive.

    ^back to top

  16. God's Preparation

     

    Everything was about to take off in my life. I started going to a good church. I had an interview for a dream job the next week and over the weekend I was going to propose marriage. I could easily envision the next ten years of my life.

    I did not get the job and my proposal was turned down.

    Many times throughout our lives we have good and godly desires. They may be to have a spouse and children, to run a useful ministry, to utilize some talent of ours for God’s glory, or maybe something else. But then we hit some terrible obstacle and our hopes are crushed and our emotions are slammed to the ground and shattered.

                The first half of Proverbs 13:12 reads, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick.” That word “sick” in the Hebrew means, “to severely wound,” “ to afflict,” “to become weak.” So you can say that “hope deferred severely wounds me and makes me weak.”

    This is where I was. I felt lost. Have we all not been there—maybe even now?

    A well known scripture is John 12:24, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains by itself alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit.” This verse illustrates a Biblical principle; that of “Birth of a godly desire,” “Death of that desire,” and “Supernatural fulfillment and great outpouring.” We can see several examples in the Bible.

     

     

    Birth of a vision

    Death of a vision

    Supernatural fulfillment

    Time of Waiting

    Abraham was given a vision of being the father of a great nation.

    Sarah, his wife, was barren and became too old to have children.

    God gave Abraham and Sarah a son, who was Isaac, in their old age who became the father of a great nation.

    25 years

    Joseph had a vision that he would be a great leader and that many would bow down to him.

    Joseph’s brothers sold him to merchants, then he became a slave, and finally a prisoner in a dungeon.

    God allowed Joseph to interpret the dreams of two fellow prisoners and the king. He was ultimately made a ruler in the land.

    13 years

    Moses had a vision of leading his people out of the bondage of Egypt.

    Moses was driven out of Egypt and away from his people.

    God gave Moses great signs that forced Pharaoh to let Moses take the Israelites out of Egypt and eventually to Canaan.

    40 years

    The disciples of Jesus had a vision of the Romans being overthrown and the kingdom of God set up.

    Jesus was killed.

    God raised Jesus from the dead and the Holy Spirit came and the Gospel went out into the world.

    3 days

    A grain of wheat has a “vision” of growing up and bearing much fruit.

    The grain dies in the ground.

    A harvest springs up from this process of death.

    Weeks or months

     

    God wants us to persevere during these times of death and discouragement. But why is there even a need for this death of hope?

    One important reason is to prepare us for God blessings. But this is not so much to prepare us to be able to receive it, but to prepare us so that we will be able to give even more after we receive it.

    God wants us to be a giving people. He gives us an ocean of blessings so that we might be a river of blessings to others.

    James 4:3 reads, “You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives…” And what is that wrong motive?

    ·        Is it because you want to show off how much you have? No.

    ·        Is it because you already have some and you want to hoard? No.

    The wrong motive is “so that you may spend it on your pleasures.” You want to keep and not to give; you are focused on what you want and not on what other people need.

    There is an interesting verse in 2 Chronicles 32:25. The context is that Hezekiah was sick and he asked God to be healed and God answered his prayer. It says, “But Hezekiah gave no return for the benefit he received, because his heart was proud; therefore wrath came on him and on Judah and Jerusalem.”

    Hezekiah’s pride was the cause of God’s wrath and the symptom was that he kept for himself all of the blessings that he received.

    God wants to fill our lives with a tremendous abundance. Luke 6:38, “Give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, they will pour into your lap.” But what is the condition here? Give.

    If you give, you will have so much blessing that it will pour out of your heart and into your lap.

                That valley in my life opened my eyes to see the struggles of others. I started a Christian Singles ministry, became involved in outreach, and learned to seek out and fulfill the needs of others. Twenty years later I married a wonderful woman and four years after that we were blessed with twin daughters.

    Sometimes, when that godly desire has been crushed, it may be so that we can become more like Christ, who gave Himself completely. It may be to teach us to consider others as more important than ourselves.

    Give. Then your light will shine out of the darkness and your gloom will become like midday.


    ^back to top

Copyright Bob La Forge 2011        email: bob@disciplescorner.com