Author Archives: Gospel Reflections

About Gospel Reflections

Christian. Passion is to share the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Isaiah 7:14: Is it really about Jesus or someone else?

4 Replies

Matthew 1:22–23 quotes Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about Jesus’ birth: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). However, many Jewish and non-Jewish authors have challenged Mathew’s claim and Christians for taking Isaiah 7:14 out of context, and applying it to a virgin birth and to a Messiah. They also point out that since Isaiah 7:16 says, “For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken”, this was not fulfilled by the Messiah. This short paper is a verse-by-verse study on Isaiah 7:1-16 to see if this chapter is indeed a prophecy of the Messiah or someone else.

Now it came about in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, the king of Aram and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but could not conquer it. (Isaiah 7:1, NASB, 1995)

Now it came about in the days of Ahaz. Ahaz was a wicked king of Judah, worshipping other gods and even sacrificing his son to Molech (2 Kings 16:1-4). The only good thing Ahaz seemed to do was to father Hezekiah, who became a good king of Judah.

Rezin, the king of Aram [Syria] and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king of Israel went up to Jerusalem to wage war against it. The alliance between these two nations [Syria and Israel] and their unsuccessful attack on Jerusalem [of the Kingdom of Judah] is described in 2 Kings 16. [In about the 10th century BC, there was a great dispute in Israel, the nation chosen by God, about who was to become king (1 Kings 12:16-19). Two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, did not agree with the proposed king of Israel, Rehoboam. As a result,  the two tribes  decided to forsake their inheritance. They became the southern Kingdom of Judah. The northern 10 tribes remained one people group and kept the name of Israel.  The Kingdom of Israel in the north, contained the cities of Shechem and Samaria; and the Kingdom of Judah in the south, contained the city of Jerusalem and the Jewish Temple]. 

But could not conquer it. How was Ahaz saved from this attack? Because he entered into an ungodly alliance with Tiglath-Pileserking of Assyria, and even gave Tiglath-Pileser silver and gold that was found in the house of the LORD as a present to win his favor and protection (2 Kings 16:7-9).

When it was reported to the house of David, saying, “The Arameans have camped in Ephraim,” his heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind. (Isaiah 7:2, NASB, 1995)

When it was reported to the house of David. That is, the royal family; or the king and princes; the government of Judah. Ahaz was the descendant and successor of David.

“The Arameans [Syrians] have camped in Ephraim,” Ephraim is another title for the northern nation of Israel. King Ahaz heard again that Syria and Israel had joined together to make war against Judah.

His heart and the hearts of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake with the wind. King Ahaz and his people reacted with fear instead of with trust in God. They were shaken and unstable in their hearts.

Then the Lord said to Isaiah, “Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller’s field (Isaiah 7:3, NASB, 1995)

Then the Lord said to Isaiah. With this threat looming against Judah [the House of David], the Lord sends Isaiah to give assurance to Ahaz.

Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub. Isaiah is told to go out to meet Ahaz, however, not by himself, but also specifically with his son Shear-jashub. Frequently, commentators overlook this command to bring the boy as if it were an unnecessary detail. There appears to be a purpose for taking his son as we will soon see. 1

At the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller’s field. It was probably a subterranean duct which brought water into the city from the high ground outside the Damascus gate. Ahaz may have visited it in order to see that it was made available for his own use, but not for the enemy’s. These seemingly irrelevant details also make an important point. All this happened to real people at a real time and in real places. 

And say to him, ‘Take care and be calm, have no fear and do not be faint hearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands, on account of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. (Isaiah 7:4, NASB, 1995)

Seemingly, Ahaz needed to pay attention (take care) and stop his talking about the problem (be calm). He needed to trust God and take courage in the LORD (do not fear or be fainthearted). God looked at Israel and Syria and saw two stubs of smoking firebrands. To the LORD, they were all smoke and no fire. 2


Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil against you, saying, 6 “Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it, and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,” (Isaiah 7:5-6, NASB, 1995)

Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah. Not that there were three parties in the confederacy against Judah, only two, the kingdoms of Syria [Aram] and Ephraim, or Israel; the king of the former [Syria] is not mentioned at all, and the latter [Israel] only as if he was the son of a private person, which is purposely done by way of contempt.

“Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it. The words imply an assault on the line of fortresses that defended Judah.

Set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it. Nothing more is known of this person. He might have been some captain, unrelated to the House of David, who had sought to aid of Rezin [King of Syria] and Pekah [King of Israel]. To set him up on the throne would mean that the entire house of David was endangered, and also the hope of a Messiah from David’s lineage.

Thus says the Lord God: “It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.  (Isaiah 7:7)

Setting up the Son of Tabeel meant that the entire house of David was endangered. Were Syria and Israel to succeed, the messianic promise of a future son of David who would have an eternal house, kingdom, and throne (2 Samuel 7:16) would be demolished. But such a thing will not come to fulfillment. 3

For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people), and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not ]last.” (Isaiah 7:8-9)

For the head [capital] of Aram [Syria] is Damascus and the head [ruler] of Damascus is Rezin. Syria and Ephraim have merely human heads – the one Rezin, the other Pekah (the son of Remaliah); but Judah, it is implied, has a Divine Head.

Now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people. Isaiah predicted that within 65 years, the northern kingdom of Israel would no longer be recognized as a people. It was completely fulfilled in 669 BC when Ashurbanipal enacted the final population transfers between Israel and Assyria (Ezr 4:2, 10). Thus in 669 BC, 65 years from the date of the events described in Isaiah’s prophecy, the northern kingdom was indeed “shattered to be a people” (verse 8) and the land was inhabited by Samaritans, a people of mixed ethnicity (Ezra 4:2).

If you will not believe, you surely shall not last. The prophet reads the thoughts that were working in the king Ahaz’s mind. He had no faith in these predictions terminating at a date which he was not likely to live to witness. If he did not put confidence in God, and his promises, he should not be protected from Syria and Ephraim [Israel].

Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.” (Isaiah 7:10-11)

Then the Lord spoke again to Ahaz, saying, “Ask a sign for yourself from the Lord your God”. The Lord Himself has just called upon Ahaz to ask for a sign.

Make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven. “Make it [the sign] deep as Sheol or high as heaven”, it appears that Ahaz was to ask for a miraculous or supernatural sign.

But Ahaz said, “I will not ask, nor will I test the Lord!” (Isaiah 7:12)

Ahaz, with false piety, refuses to test God. The disingenuous nature of his response is plain in that this is a king who had so little regard for the Lord that he practiced idolatry, even offering his own son as a child sacrifice to Molech (2Kg 16:3; 2Ch 28:3). While he might claim biblical justification (Deut 6:16) for his refusal to ask or test the Lord (verse 12), this seems ridiculous because the Lord Himself has just called upon him to do so.

Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? (Isaiah 7:13)

Then he said, “Listen now, O house of David! Isaiah speaks now but His address shifts away from Ahaz to the whole house of David. This is evident not only from the vocative “house of David” but also from the change of singular pronouns and verbs of command (Isaiah 7:4, 11) to plural. When addressing Ahaz alone, the singular was used. However, in Isaiah 7:13-14, Isaiah used the second-person plural. This is not an obvious change in the English Bible, but in verse 13, the imperative verb “listen” is plural. The reason for the shift is that God was clearly fed up with this wicked and sanctimonious king, so he addressed the royal house he represented.1

Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well? The rulers of Judah were not satisfied with wearying people, but they would also fatigue and wear out the patience of God.

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel (Isaiah 9:14). 

Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Isaiah declared that, nonetheless, the Lord would give the House of David a sign. Since the northern alliance was threatening to replace Ahaz with the son of Tabeel, the entire house of David was endangered, and the messianic promise of a future son of David was also threatened. This provides the need for a long-term sign of hope. What is that sign?

Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son.  The sign that the Lord promised the house of David is that of a pregnant almah who would bear a son. This indeed would meet the qualification of the “sign” that is “deep as Sheol or high as heaven” (Isaiah 7:10-11). The use of the article (frequently untranslated in modern English versions) with the word almah indicates that the Lord has a specific woman in mind. In its every use in the Hebrew Bible, the word almah either refers to a virgin or has a neutral sense. While the Hebrew word bethulah could refer to a virgin of any age, almah would refer to a virgin that has just arrived at puberty.1

Moreover, Matthew’s gospel (Matthew 1:22–23) was probably quoting from the Septuagint — a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek completed around the 2nd century BCE. The Septuagint translated הָעַלְמָה (ha’almah) as parthenos — meaning “virgin”. Since the Septuagint predates Christianity, there’s no reason to think that the translators intentionally changed the meaning. Rashi, one of the most influential Jewish commentators, stated that some Jews understood the verse as prophecy about a virgin birth:

“And some interpret that this is the sign, that she was a young girl and incapable of giving birth.” (The Jewish Bible with a Modern English Translation and Rashi’s Commentary, Rabbi A.J. Rosenberg). 4

Hence, it is not necessary to abandon the traditional interpretation of almah as a “virgin” except for an anti-supernatural or anti-messianic bias. 

She will call His name Immanuel. The virgin mother of the child will recognize His special nature. Therefore, she will give Him the title “Immanuel,” which means “God with us.” The message to Judah was that God would be with them in a special way through this child. This was true of Jesus in fact, not only as a title: Immanuel speaks both of the deity of Jesus (God with us) and His identification and nearness to man (God with us).

He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good (Isaiah 9:15). 

The Lord continues His description of the virgin-born Davidic Messiah, giving a clue to the situation into which He would be born. Many mistake the butter and honey He would eat as the food of royalty, ignoring the context in Isaiah 7 itself. Later in the chapter, Isaiah writes of the coming Assyrian oppression, when Assyria would shave the land (Isaiah 7:20). At that time, fields will not be cultivated and will become pastures for oxen and sheep (Isaiah 7:23-25). The effect of this will be an overabundance of dairy (or butter/curds) because of the pasturing of livestock and an excess of honey because bees will be able to pollinate the wild flowers. Therefore, because of “the abundant milk they give,” a man “will eat butter [curd], for every survivor in the land will eat butter and honey” (7:21-22). So, in this passage, butter and honey do not represent the food of royalty but rather the food of oppression. The point then of the description of the future virgin-born, Davidic king eating curd and honey is to accentuate that he would be born during a time of political oppression. In other words, the prophecy of Messiah concludes with a hint that He will be born and grow up (“learning to reject what is bad and choose what is good”) at a time when Judah is oppressed by a foreign power. It also shows that Jesus is not only fully God (He is Immanuel), but He is also fully Human (grow up). 

For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken (Isaiah 7:16).

While many have considered verse 16 to be a continuation of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:13-15, the grammar of the passage suggests otherwise. The opening phrase in Hebrew can reflect an adversative nuance, allowing for a disjunction between the child described in Isaiah 7:13-15 and the one described in Isaiah 7:16. This is also indicated in the shift from plural (verse 13-15) to singular (verse 16). There is a different child in view in this verse. So, who is the child?

In light of Isaiah being directed to bring his own son to the confrontation with the king at the conduit of the upper pool (Isaiah 7:3), it makes most sense to identify this lad as Shear-jashub. Otherwise, there would be no purpose for God directing Isaiah to bring the boy.  Thus, having promised the virgin birth of the Messiah (Isaiah 7:13-15), the prophet then points to the small boy that he has brought along and says, “But before this boy (using the article with a demonstrative force) knows to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken”. In this way, Shear-jashub functioned as a sign to the king. Appropriately, Isaiah could tell Judah in the very next chapter, “Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion.” (Isaiah 8:18).

Therefore, in Isaiah 7:10-11, Isaiah used the singular to address King Ahaz. Then, when addressing the house of David with the prophecy of Messiah (Isaiah 7:13), he shifted to the plural. But in Isaiah 7:16, he addressed King Ahaz, using the singular pronoun once again and giving him a near prophecy: before Shear-jashub would be able to discern good from evil, the northern confederacy attacking Judah would fail. Within two years, Tiglath-Pileser defeated both Israel and Syria, just as the prophet had predicted. Therefore verse 16 cannot and does not apply to the Messiah child, but Isaiah’s child, and this interpretation is in line with the context and the grammar of the chapter.

References

1. The Moody Handbook of Messianic Prophecies: Studies and Expositions of the Messiah in the Old Testament, eds. Michael Rydelnik & Edwin Blum, published by Moody Publishers, Chicago, IL 2019, pp. 815-830.

2. David Guzik: Isaiah 7, https://enduringword.com/bible-commentary/isaiah-7/

3. Biblehub, commentaries: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/isaiah/7-13.htm

4. Nick Meader: Is Isaiah 7:14 About Jesus or Someone Else? https://medium.com/interfaith-now/is-isaiah-7-14-about-jesus-or-someone-else-84f25d327e0f

See also: Isaiah 53:1-12: Israel or Messiah?

Your support of this ministry is greatly appreciated and can be made here.

The Rich Man and Lazarus – Parable or not?

1 Reply

Lazarus and the Rich Man is the final parable of five that Jesus told in response to a group of Pharisees and scribes who were unhappy over the fact that Jesus welcomed sinners and ate with them (Luke 15:1 and 16:14). Just before this parable, Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for loving money, exalting themselves in self-justification, and ignoring the Old Testament’s authority, which testified about the Messiah (Luke 16:14–18). All three themes are woven into the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Starting from Luke 16:19, Jesus begins the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. What can we learn from this parable?

Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day (Luke 16:19 NASB 1995)

Now there was a rich man. This is similar to the way Luke introduces the four parables that precede this. Parables are introduced with the generalizing formula such as “there was a man” (Luke 15:3, 15:8, 15:11; 16:1). The rich man is the first character in this story, and he represents the Pharisees and anyone who loves money more than God.

He habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. Purple color was expensive as well as splendid, and was chiefly worn by nobles, and the very wealthy. Fine linen was chiefly produced of the flax that grew on the banks of the Nile and it was also very expensive. So, we are told that this rich man feasted and lived selfishly in a splendid manner not just occasionally, but constantly, ignoring God’s commandments to help the poor. “You shall fully open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land” (Deuteronomy 15:11)

And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores (Luke 16:20)

And a poor man named Lazarus. This is the second character in this story, representing a class of people despised by the Pharisees. Jesus named the poor man in this story, and not the rich man, which was countercultural in that society and it would have felt really wrong to the Pharisees. The name Lazarus means “The one whom God helps”. God’s help was much more evident after Lazarus’ death as the parable goes on to show.

Now some say that this story is not a parable, but a real event since it mentions historical figures such as Lazarus, Abraham, Moses—something no parable has. This observation is right, but it’s hard to miss the fact that Luke introduces this story the same way he does the previous parables such as “there was a man”. Further, there are no known rules that prohibit parables to include actual names.

Was laid at his gate, covered with sores. He was laid at the door of the rich man probably by some man in order that he might obtain help. We are told he was afflicted not only with poverty but loathsome and offensive ulcers.

And longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. (Luke 16:21)

And longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table. It was common in that day for dogs to eat the food spilled from the table of their masters. Lazarus was so hungry that he longed to be treated as well as the rich man’s dogs.

Even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. The picture is not that the dogs came to befriend Lazarus, but they come to humiliate and irritate his condition more by licking his sores and possibly infecting them even more. The dogs in this culture were considered ceremonially unclean, and to be licked by an unclean creature magnified his humiliation.

Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried (Luke 16:22)

Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The poor man Lazarus died, but Jesus surprises the listeners by saying that “the angels carried him to Abraham’s side” and not the rich man. Pharisees would have expected the rich man to be favored by God, and that people like Lazarus were poor and diseased because they were under God’s judgement; hence, it was people like Lazarus who should have been tormented in Hades when they died. Jews also held to the belief that the spirits of the righteous were carried by angels to Abraham’s bosom or side in heaven at their death. Jesus mentions these facts based on the prevailing view at this time. In The Testament of Abraham, a Jewish apocryphal text, it is written in 20:11-12 about Abraham’ s death as follows: “And they buried him in the promised land at the oak of Mamre, while the angels escorted his precious soul and ascended into heaven singing the thrice-holy hymn to God, the master of all”.

A question arises though. Should this parable of the rich man and Lazarus be used as a definitive statement about the afterlife? Since parables were told to illustrate a point, not to give a systematic account of any doctrine, we must be careful to use it as a definitive statement about after life. However, the Scriptures do teach that, at death, “the dust [body] will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God” (Ecclesiastes 12:7), and the body will “sleep” in the grave till the resurrection of the body at Christ’s second coming. See our study on The state of the dead. While the Bible do not mention angels carrying spirits to heaven elsewhere (besides in this parable), the Bible is clear angels are “ministering spirits” (Hebrews 1:14) doing God’s work, and it may not be surprising for angels to be involved in this work.

“Abraham’s bosom” was a term equivalent to being with Abraham’s side in Paradise or heaven similar to when Jesus says, “Many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: (Matthew 8:11). Generally, all parables have an earthly setting, but not this one, again, compelling some to interpret this not as a parable, but a real historical event.

And the rich man also died and was buried. Burial was thought to be an honor, and funerals were often expensive. This is said of the rich man to show that he had “every” earthly honor unlike the poor man.

In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom (Luke 16:23)

In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment. Jesus completes the surprise by telling them that the rich man also died and was buried, but he is the one who found himself being conscious and tormented in Hades. From this, some conclude that the parable teaches that the poor go to heaven and the rich to hell at death. The problem with such a view, as Augustine noted long ago, is that poor Lazarus is carried to the side of wealthy Abraham. If wealth alone determines our fate, then Abraham, Job, among many others should not be in heaven along with the rich man.2

Further, it is noteworthy that the parable nowhere states that both Lazarus and the rich man were in Hades; Lazarus appears to be placed in Abraham’s Bosom, a place far off (Luke 16:23) from Hades and separated from it by a great chasm. (Luke 16:26). Again, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus should not be used as a definitive statement about the afterlife, or the nature of Hades. Thus, Jesus intended not to fully describe Hades, but to warn His listeners about their hardheartedness, and love of money.

Sheol/Hades: In the Old Testament Scriptures, the Hebrew word generally used to describe the realm of the dead is SHEOL. It simply means “the place of the dead” or “the place of departed souls/spirits” (Genesis 37:35), or sometimes the “grave” (Psalm 141:7), with context determining the meaning. Sometimes the Old Testament present those who go down to sheol as silent, and another time, they are conscious as we find in Isaiah 14:9, which says that “Sheol below is excited about you, to meet you when you come; It stirs the spirits of the dead for you” .The New Testament Greek equivalent to SHEOL is HADES, which is also a general reference to “the place of the dead”.

– Jehovah’s Witness’ and Seventh-day Adventists, among others interpret SHEOL and HADES, simply to be the grave (nothing more), where both righteous and wicked go at death until the final resurrection and judgement. In their theology, generally the soul/spirit do not exist apart from the body after death. In this view, soul is the whole person, and their view is generally known as “soul sleep”, where the whole person sleeps (or is not conscious) until the resurrection.

– While other Christians see sheol/hades to be more than just the grave. In this view, “bodies” of the dead sleep at death, but the “spirit/soul” is to some degree conscious and go to the following destinations. In this view, some believe that during the Old Testament time period, the “spirits” of the righteous went to a part of Sheol/Hades called “Paradise/Abraham’s Bosom”, not heaven, and the “spirits” of the wicked went to a part of Sheol/Hades where they were tormented, similar to parable of the rich man and Lazarus . After Jesus rose from the dead, it is interpreted (I Peter 3:19; Ephesians 4:8-10) to mean that He cleared out the side called Paradise (where the Old testament righteous saints have gone at death), and took all of them with Him in His ascension to heaven (where all “the spirits” of all post-resurrection saints now go at death). Hades is now exclusively a temporary place of torment for the wicked. And that may or may not be true. Christians do not agree on these specifics. [Others feel that paradise, Abraham’s bosom, and heaven are three different descriptions of the same place, where all the “spirits” of righteous saints (before and after the cross) have gone (Hebrews 11:10,16)].

Not HADES, but the Greek word GEHENNA is used in the New Testament for “hell” or “lake of fire”, the final place of punishment for the wicked after the “bodily” resurrection at the final judgement (Revelation 20:14).

Saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. This appears to aggravate his misery and suffering, to see the poor man that lay at his gate completely happy with Abraham.

And he cried out 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 off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ (Luke 16:24)

And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me’. The Jews believed that departed spirits might know and converse with each other. Jesus speaks in conformity with such opinions. Now, remember that this man is a Jew and his Jewishness has not saved him. He bore no fruit that befits repentance, he shared no food, no clothes, and now he’s condemned. Interestingly, the rich man is not represented as calling on “God.” The Jews considered a proud honor that Abraham was their “father” and they were “descendants” from him, yet having Abraham as father was not enough to escape.

And send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.

The rich man knew Lazarus by name, so he clearly was aware of the impoverished poor man at his gate. The rich man, even in his torment, remained self-centered, viewing Lazarus as a servant. He showed no sense of remorse for how he failed to help Lazarus during their time on earth. A drop of water on the tongue would not stop his agony in the flame yet he was desperate to have even a drop of water. This again shows that we need not take everything in this parable literally.

You received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony (Luke 16:25)

“Your good things” refers to the wealth and riches that the rich man valued most during his life. But they were of no value to him after death.

And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ (Luke 16:26)

It was also commonly understood in the teaching of the ancient Jewish writings, that the righteous and the unrighteous were separated after death, and although they can see each other, they cannot cross the unfathomable, uncrossable, unbridgeable chasm that God has fixed in his sovereign judgment.  There is also no indication in the Bible or in this parable that there’s a purgatory because “those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us”.

But the underlying revelation in this story is that, in fact, there is one who crosses chasms for the sake of sinners, that is Jesus. God gave his eternal Son for all sinners, not just for sinners like Lazarus, but for sinners like the rich man, too (John 3:16-17). But the rich man, a symbol of the Pharisees and the scribes, who gathered to condemn Jesus, didn’t want the God who became flesh.

And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ (Luke 16:27-28)

The rich man continues to be self-absorbed, concerned only about those in his immediate family. He again views Lazarus as a mere servant.

But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ (Luke 16:29)

“Moses and the Prophets,” that’s a way of saying what we call the Old Testament, which was the extent of the Bible at that time, which was sufficient revelation about the necessity of love and the danger of judgment, until Jesus came. Jesus had already told them that the Law and Prophets testify about Him (John 5:39), a testimony they had rejected. How much more so does the entire Bible today, by detailing the fulfillment of the Old Testament messianic prophecies, and in the New Testament, clearly laying out God’s offer of grace through Jesus’ atoning death on the cross?

But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ (Luke 16:30)

Once again, the rich man shows his pride and arrogance by arguing with Abraham. But the rich man knows that his brothers do not listen to the Old Testament Scriptures. They may have devotions in the morning for a few minutes and they attend synagogues once a week, but he knows that their whole mindset about money is shaped by the world not God. And so the rich man knows it is not going to do any good for Abraham just to say to them: read Moses, read the prophets! If someone could go from among the dead—something really startling, some miracle—then they would wake up and repent. They would forsake their selfish luxury and start to live for others to the glory of God.

But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:31)

Jesus is foretelling the resurrection of his close friend Lazarus (John 11) as well as His own. In both cases, some believed, but many did not. Moreover, in both resurrections, many actively resisted the outcome and plotted against the characters involved. If a person is so in love with money that he is deaf to the commands and warnings and promises of Moses and the prophets, then even a resurrection from the dead will not bring about repentance. Jesus’ friend Lazarus (John 11) and Jesus rose from the dead. Yet the Jews weren’t convinced; the Pharisees, scribes and chief priests who conspired to have Jesus crucified also conspired to have soldiers lie about his resurrection (Matthew 27:62-66) and proceeded to persecute and kill those who became believers.

Additional thoughts:

By the first century two conflicting schools of thought were prevailing, represented by the Saducees and the Pharisees respectively. Whereas the Saduccees dismissed any idea of disembodied spirits/angels or the resurrection of the dead, the Pharisees — as well as the Jewish populace at large (see: Matt 14:26; Luke 24:37–39; John 11:24; Acts 12:15) — embraced both these concepts (Acts 23:8–9). 

  • In Luke 16, Jesus offers the most graphic New Testament depiction of ongoing conscious existence beyond death. Some first-century Jews had ideas about the afterlife that included such concepts as Abraham’s bosom and consciousness in sheol. Jesus used these ideas as the setting for the story, without attempting to correct those ideas. Neither Jesus nor Luke felt any compulsion to correct the popular beliefs about the afterlife. Would Jesus use a pagan error to illustrate his parable of Lazarus and the rich man? Would one use error to illustrate truth? This is a valid question.

  • While the lesson of the parable is very clear, it is difficult to conclude that Jesus’ audience (the Pharisees for instance) were not expected to draw relevant inferences from it regarding life after death. Thus, whilst one should be cautious about pressing all the details in this parable to be literal (e.g., the rich man and Lazarus are both depicted in a corporeal manner, having a finger and tongue respectively, and can communicate with one another, among other things), Jesus appears to be giving at least tacit endorsement to the idea of after death, but pre-resurrection, state of being. Thus, the scenario portrayed in this parable seems to correlate in some measure with the idea of an intermediate state for both the righteous and the unrighteous, before the final resurrection and judgement.  

  • However, this is the only biblical text that lends any support to such an interim conscious punishment for the wicked (perhaps a case could be made in Jude 1:6-7 too). As such, it is also arguably mistaken to build such a doctrine on the basis of such a debatable passage. While there may be little or no definitive biblical support for the conscious intermediate state of the wicked, there is much clearer evidence with respect to the righteous after Christ’s resurrection.1

Adapted & Referenced:

  1. Death and the Afterlife – Paul R. Williamson
  2. Is the Rich Man and Lazarus a Parable? Peter Gurry
  3. Lecture on the Rich man and Lazarus by D. A Carson.

See also our chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse, commentaries on the book of Daniel, Revelation & Genesis for a deeper understanding of the Sabbath. 

And more:

Your support of this ministry is greatly appreciated and can be made here.

Who is Michael the Archangel? 

2 Replies

Who is Michael? Some individuals and groups (such as the Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and others) insist that Michael is Jesus. Though Michael has similarities with Jesus, Michael is not Jesus for the following reasons.

  • Some say Michael must be Jesus because he has his angels. But if Satan, a fallen angelic being, has his angels (Revelation 12:7), cannot Michael, an unfallen angelic being, have his angels?
  • Some say Michael must be Jesus, because his name means “who is like God” or One like God. But if this were a title of Jesus, it would argue against His deity, not for it because it would say that Jesus is like God, but not God. However, Jesus is God, and not just like God (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8).
  • Some say Michael must be Jesus, because he is called the archangel (Jude 9), which means leader or prince among the angels, and they say that only Jesus is the leader of the angels. But we know from Daniel 10:13, 10:20 and 10:21 that Michael is “one of the chief princes”, meaning he is one among others. Jesus is not the foremost from a group of others. The Bible calls Jesus “King of Kings” and “Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16) This title indicates absolute sovereignty and authority and is a far cry from being a foremost prince who is one among a group of equals.
  • Paul refers to “a voice of an archangel” in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 in a way that presupposes other archangels. Translations like the ESV and NKJV uses “an archangel,” and others like the NASB put “the” in italics so that it is clear to the reader that the word is not in Greek.
  • Jesus is referred to as a “prince”, “the Son of God”, but so are angels referred to as “sons of God”, and Satan is referred as a “prince” (Ephesians 2:2). Yet this does not mean that Jesus, angels or Michael are the same in spite of similar titles. Jesus is more than a prince.
  • SDA theology presents Michael as the only archangel. However, Michael cannot be the only archangel, as Ellen White presents Satan as another archangel: “Rebellion originated with Satan. Notwithstanding the exalted position which he occupied among the heavenly host, he became dissatisfied because he was not accorded supreme honor. Hence he questioned God’s purposes and impugned his justice. He bent all his powers to allure the angels from their allegiance. The fact that he was an ARCHANGEL, glorious and powerful, enabled him to exert a mighty influence”. (source: https://m.egwwritings.org/it/book/820.4726#4738).
  • Ellen White says, “Christ as High Priest within the veil so immortalized Calvary, that though He liveth unto God, He dies continually to sin and thus if any man sin, he has an Advocate with the Father. He arose from the tomb enshrouded with a cloud of angels in wondrous power and glory,–the Deity and humanity combined. He took in His grasp the world over which Satan claimed to preside as his lawful territory, and by His wonderful work in giving His life, He restored the whole race of men to favor with God. The songs of triumph echoed and re-echoed through the worlds. Angel and archangel, cherubim and seraphim, sang the triumphant song at the amazing achievement.–Manuscript 50, 1900.  {7ABC 485.1}.
  • As per the above Ellen White statement, it would have been odd indeed that, if there is only one archangel, and he is none other than Christ himself, he would sing “the triumphant song” at his own “amazing achievement”.
  • Some say that Michael must be Jesus because Paul says that at the second coming, the Lord will call His people with the voice of an archangel and the trumpet of God (1 Thessalonians 4:16). But Jesus can use His voice as well as the voice of an archangel to call out for His people without being that angel, just as much as God can use a trumpet to sound out a call without being the trumpet.
  • Pre-incarnate Jesus appears in the Old Testament as “the Angel (Messenger) of the Lord”, and perhaps even as the “Captain of the Host” (Joshua 5:13-15), but none of those verses tell us that “the Angel of the Lord” is Michael.
  • In Zechariah 3:2, the Angel of the Lord (pre-incarnate Christ) defers the rebuking of Satan to God the Father. Similarly, Michael does the same in Jude 1:9. There is no necessity to conclude both are the same individuals, simply because Michael and Angel of the Lord defer their rebuking. Another time, Jesus rebuked the devil directly (Matthew 17:18).
  • The angel Michael is often associated with spiritual battle (Daniel 10:13, Daniel 10:21, Jude 1:9, and Revelation 12:7). Since Michael is called the archangel (Jude 1:9), he is Satan’s true opposite. Satan is not the opposite of Jesus; he is the opposite of Michael, this high-ranking angel.
  • Even if Michael, a very high-ranking angel, had certain similarities with Jesus, and did certain similar things, that does not make Jesus to be Michael. Michael is not to be identified with Christ, any more than any other of the great angels in the Bible. Such identification would confuse hopelessly the persons in the heavenly scene (Revelation 12).

See our Revelations commentary to learn more about Michael (see Chapter 12).