11 August 2018 — Un gran simo
Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 54 viewsNotes
Transcript
We have all seen him. He lies on a pile of newspapers outside a shop doorway, covered with a rough blanket. Perhaps he has a dog with him for safety. People walk past him, or even step over him. He occasionally rattles a few coins in a tin or cup, asking for more. He wasn’t there when I was a boy, but he’s there now, in all our cities, east, west, north and south.
As I see him, I hear voices. It’s his own fault, they say. He’s chosen it. There are agencies to help him. He should go and get a job. If we give him money he’ll only spend it on drink. Stay away—he might be violent. Sometimes, in some places, the police will move him on, exporting the problem somewhere else. But he’ll be back. And even if he isn’t, there are whole societies like that. They camp in tin shacks on the edges of large, rich cities. From the door of their tiny makeshift shelters you can see the high-rise hotels and office blocks where, if they’re very lucky, one member of the family might work as a cleaner. They have been born into debt, and in debt they will stay, through the fault of someone rich and powerful who signed away their rights, their lives in effect, a generation or two ago, in return for arms, a new presidential palace, a fat Swiss bank account. And even if rich and poor don’t always live side by side so blatantly, the television brings us together.
So we all know Lazarus. He is our neighbour. Some of us may be rich, well dressed and well fed, and walk past him without even noticing; others of us may not be so rich, or so finely clothed and fed, but compared with Lazarus we’re well off. He would be glad to change places with us, and we would be horrified to share his life, even for a day.
Jesus’ story about Lazarus and the unnamed rich man (he’s often called ‘Dives’, because that’s the Latin word for ‘rich’, but in the story he remains anonymous) works at several levels. It is very like a well-known folk tale in the ancient world; Jesus was by no means the first to tell of how wealth and poverty might be reversed in the future life. In fact, stories like this were so well known that we can see how Jesus has changed the pattern that people would expect. In the usual story, when someone asks permission to send a message back to the people who are still alive on earth, the permission is granted. Here, it isn’t; and the sharp ending of the story points beyond itself to all sorts of questions that Jesus’ hearers, and Luke’s readers, were urged to face.
The parable is not primarily a moral tale about riches and poverty—though, in this chapter, it should be heard in that way as well. If that’s all it was, some might say that it was better to let the poor stay poor, since they will have a good time in the future life. That sort of argument has been used too often by the careless rich for us to want anything to do with it. No; there is something more going on here. The story, after all, doesn’t add anything new to the general folk belief about fortunes being reversed in a future life. If it’s a parable, that means once again that we should take it as picture-language about something that was going on in Jesus’ own work.
Body
We have all seen him. He lies on a pile of newspapers outside a shop doorway, covered with a rough blanket. Perhaps he has a dog with him for safety. People walk past him, or even step over him. He occasionally rattles a few coins in a tin or cup, asking for more. He wasn’t there when I was a boy, but he’s there now, in all our cities, east, west, north and south.
As I see him, I hear voices. It’s his own fault, they say. He’s chosen it. There are agencies to help him. He should go and get a job. If we give him money he’ll only spend it on drink. Stay away—he might be violent. Sometimes, in some places, the police will move him on, exporting the problem somewhere else. But he’ll be back. And even if he isn’t, there are whole societies like that. They camp in tin shacks on the edges of large, rich cities. From the door of their tiny makeshift shelters you can see the high-rise hotels and office blocks where, if they’re very lucky, one member of the family might work as a cleaner. They have been born into debt, and in debt they will stay, through the fault of someone rich and powerful who signed away their rights, their lives in effect, a generation or two ago, in return for arms, a new presidential palace, a fat Swiss bank account. And even if rich and poor don’t always live side by side so blatantly, the television brings us together.
So we all know Lazarus. He is our neighbour. Some of us may be rich, well dressed and well fed, and walk past him without even noticing; others of us may not be so rich, or so finely clothed and fed, but compared with Lazarus we’re well off. He would be glad to change places with us, and we would be horrified to share his life, even for a day.
Jesus’ story about Lazarus and the unnamed rich man (he’s often called ‘Dives’, because that’s the Latin word for ‘rich’, but in the story he remains anonymous) works at several levels. It is very like a well-known folk tale in the ancient world; Jesus was by no means the first to tell of how wealth and poverty might be reversed in the future life. In fact, stories like this were so well known that we can see how Jesus has changed the pattern that people would expect. In the usual story, when someone asks permission to send a message back to the people who are still alive on earth, the permission is granted. Here, it isn’t; and the sharp ending of the story points beyond itself to all sorts of questions that Jesus’ hearers, and Luke’s readers, were urged to face.
The parable is not primarily a moral tale about riches and poverty—though, in this chapter, it should be heard in that way as well. If that’s all it was, some might say that it was better to let the poor stay poor, since they will have a good time in the future life. That sort of argument has been used too often by the careless rich for us to want anything to do with it. No; there is something more going on here. The story, after all, doesn’t add anything new to the general folk belief about fortunes being reversed in a future life. If it’s a parable, that means once again that we should take it as picture-language about something that was going on in Jesus’ own work.
The Apostle John issues this warning in his first letter:
Porque no envió Dios a su Hijo al mundo para condenar al mundo, sino para que el mundo sea salvo por él.
Pero el que tiene bienes de este mundo y ve a su hermano tener necesidad, y cierra contra él su corazón, ¿cómo mora el amor de Dios en él?
James, the practical-minded brother of our Lord, asks a similar question:
“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” (3:17).
Y si un hermano o una hermana están desnudos, y tienen necesidad del mantenimiento de cada día,y alguno de vosotros les dice: Id en paz, calentaos y saciaos, pero no les dais las cosas que son necesarias para el cuerpo, ¿de qué aprovecha?
James, the practical-minded brother of our Lord, asks a similar question: “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (, ).
John does not see how it is possible to love God and not help one in material need. James questions the authenticity of the faith of one who does nothing to help another who has physical needs. In effect, both view uncaring, stingy people as lost despite their affirmations of faith in and love for God. And well they should, because that is what the Lord himself affirmed in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The preceding Parable of the Dishonest Manager (vv. 1–15) addresses the proper use of money. This parable confronts the abuse of money, especially by the rich. It is a solemn warning.
“Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” (, ).
John does not see how it is possible to love God and not help one in material need. James questions the authenticity of the faith of one who does nothing to help another who has physical needs. In effect, both view uncaring, stingy people as lost despite their affirmations of faith in and love for God. And well they should, because that is what the Lord himself affirmed in the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The preceding Parable of the Dishonest Manager (vv. 1–15) addresses the proper use of money. This parable confronts the abuse of money, especially by the rich. It is a solemn warning.
But even more, it warns us about the dramatic reversals that can come after death and also the terrors of Hell. It exposes the subtle causes of the callous indifference that people within the worshiping community sometimes show to the poor. Jesus did his best to wipe the sneers off the faces of those who brushed aside his teaching in the Parable of the Dishonest Manager (cf. v. 14) and in the process provided deep, sobering wisdom for the church universal.
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Christ shows that in this life men decide their eternal destiny. During probationary time the grace of God is offered to every soul. But if men waste their opportunities in self-pleasing, they cut themselves off from everlasting life. No afterprobation will be granted them. By their own choice they have fixed an impassable gulf between them and their God.
This parable draws a contrast between the rich who have not made God their dependence, and the poor who have made God their dependence. Christ shows that the time is coming when the position of the two classes will be reversed. Those who are poor in this world’s goods, yet who trust in God and are patient in suffering, will one day be exalted above those who now hold the highest positions the world can give but who have not surrendered their life to God.
LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND THE POOR (VV. 19–23)
Earthly Lifestyles
He began by giving a gripping description of contrasting lifestyles.
First, that of a rich man:
Había un hombre rico, que se vestía de púrpura y de lino fino, y hacía cada día banquete con esplendidez.
“Lifestyles of the Rich and the Famous”! He lived like a king. Since purple was the color of royalty, he wore outer garments of imported Phoenician wool Lana de Fenecia dyed by the purple of murex molusco Murex, a rare and expensive sea mussel. Next to his skin he wore byssus, an unusually fine linen from Egypt. And at the center of his daily existence was a brilliant table, haute cuisine every day. This was Roman chic to the nth degree, even though he was a Jew.
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day” (v. 19). “Lifestyles of the Rich and the Famous”! He lived like a king. Since purple was the color of royalty, he wore outer garments of imported Phoenician wool dyed by the purple of murex, a rare and expensive sea mussel. Next to his skin he wore byssus, an unusually fine linen from Egypt. And at the center of his daily existence was a brilliant table, haute cuisine every day. This was Roman chic to the nth degree, even though he was a Jew.
In stark contrast,
Había también un mendigo llamado Lázaro, que estaba echado a la puerta de aquél, lleno de llagas,y ansiaba saciarse de las migajas que caían de la mesa del rico; y aun los perros venían y le lamían las llagas.
The beggar was so ill that he had to be “laid” (literally, “cast”) at the rich man’s gate. His illness and malnutrition left him covered with weeping ulcers. Assaulted with constant hunger, he would gladly have accepted the leftovers from the rich man’s table. Lukan scholar John Nolland says that though the common view is that the dogs were wild, he believes they were dogs from the rich man’s estate. “Instead of a servant coming with the fallen scraps, the dogs come from having consumed the scraps and continue their meal with the juices that ooze from the afflicted man’s sores.” Be that as it may, the picture is of a man utterly neglected, helpless, and receiving more compassion from unclean dogs than from the rich man’s house.
“At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores” (vv. 20, 21). The beggar was so ill that he had to be “laid” (literally, “cast”) at the rich man’s gate. His illness and malnutrition left him covered with weeping ulcers. Assaulted with constant hunger, he would gladly have accepted the leftovers from the rich man’s table. Lukan scholar John Nolland says that though the common view is that the dogs were wild, he believes they were dogs from the rich man’s estate. “Instead of a servant coming with the fallen scraps, the dogs come from having consumed the scraps and continue their meal with the juices that ooze from the afflicted man’s sores.” Be that as it may, the picture is of a man utterly neglected, helpless, and receiving more compassion from unclean dogs than from the rich man’s house.
The wealthy man knew who the beggar was because he would later recognize him after both their deaths. Meanwhile, day by day as the man passed through his gate wearing his purple robes, his perfumed aroma collided with the beggar’s stench. Occasionally their eyes met, but with no recognition and no feeling by the wealthy man. The beggar was simply part of the landscape—an unpleasant sight one had to endure. Soon the beggar would be gone.
Significantly, Lazarus’ name (not to be confused with Lazarus of Bethany) meant “God has helped,” appropriate in view of the divinely arranged outcome of his life. But while sitting at the rich man’s gate, his name seemed to mock him.
How could the rich man, considering himself a son of Abraham and a blessed member of God’s people, be so heartless? He certainly was not an atheist. He believed in God. He apparently was not a Sadducee (who denied the hereafter) because Jesus told this story to help Pharisees see themselves more clearly (cf. v. 14). His theology was probably orthodox. He would have affirmed the Torah and understood that after death came judgment.
So why his total lack of compassion? He did not take seriously Holy Scripture, which he and the rest of his culture professed to believe. God’s word through the prophets was uniformly consistent about the necessity of mercy and compassion.
Porque misericordia quiero, y no sacrificio, y conocimiento de Dios más que holocaustos.
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” ()
This text was a pillar in Jesus’ teaching as well. Twice he quoted it to show that mercy/compassion is far more important than legalistic performance of religious ritual (cf. ; ). Other Old Testament texts confirm this truth.
“For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.” ()
Aborrecí, abominé vuestras solemnidades, y no me complaceré en vuestras asambleas. Y si me ofreciereis vuestros holocaustos y vuestras ofrendas, no los recibiré, ni miraré a las ofrendas de paz de vuestros animales engordados. Quita de mí la multitud de tus cantares, pues no escucharé las salmodias de tus instrumentos. Pero corra el juicio como las aguas, y la justicia como impetuoso arroyo.
¿Me ofrecisteis sacrificios y ofrendas en el desierto en cuarenta años, oh casa de Israel? Antes bien, llevabais el tabernáculo de vuestro Moloc y Quiún, ídolos vuestros, la estrella de vuestros dioses que os hicisteis.
This text was a pillar in Jesus’ teaching as well. Twice he quoted it to show that mercy/compassion is far more important than legalistic performance of religious ritual (cf. ; ). Other Old Testament texts confirm this truth.
¿Con qué me presentaré ante Jehová, y adoraré al Dios Altísimo? ¿Me presentaré ante él con holocaustos, con becerros de un año?¿Se agradará Jehová de millares de carneros, o de diez mil arroyos de aceite? ¿Daré mi primogénito por mi rebelión, el fruto de mis entrañas por el pecado de mi alma?Oh hombre, él te ha declarado lo que es bueno, y qué pide Jehová de ti: solamente hacer justicia, y amar misericordia, y humillarte ante tu Dios.
Oseas 5:
We cannot please God without having a merciful spirit!
“I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! Did you bring me sacrifices and offerings forty years in the desert, O house of Israel? You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god—which you made for yourselves.” ()
“With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” ()
We cannot please God without having a merciful spirit!
As a Jew, the rich man knew the Ten Commandments. He knew that the last six prescribed how he ought to relate to people. He might not have summed it up like Jesus did (“love your neighbor as yourself,” ; cf. ), but he understood the rightness of compassion from the Decalogue. He simply did not take the commandments seriously.
God gave us the Law and the Prophets to bring us face to face with our sin, impotence, and need. (See Paul’s brilliant argument in .) But the rich man never really thought about any of that.
A surface reading of this parable might indicate that the rich man missed salvation because he was not generous enough with his money. But that is not the case. The true reason for his damnation was his disregard for God’s Word and his rejection of the Lord. He did not believe the Scriptures. And he certainly did not think his disregard would land him in Hell. To think that someone like him, living in such abundance, can miss Heaven! And yet, without Christ, such is the case.
Heavenly Lifestyles
Death sometimes brings a dramatic reversal of lifestyle. This happened first for Lazarus: mendígo = mendigo
Aconteció que murió el mendigo, y fue llevado por los ángeles al seno de Abraham; y murió también el rico, y fue sepultado.
[end with Abraham…]
No one bothered to give the beggar’s loathsome body a burial. It was probably tossed onto the trash heap in the Valley of Hinnom. Ignored by human beings, he was carried by heavenly beings to Abraham’s bosom—a place of honor at a heavenly feast, where he reclined to the right of Abraham as they enjoyed intimate conversation (cf. ).
Lazarus was in Abraham’s bosom not because he was poor, but because though his name (“God has helped”) had mocked him in life, he believed God’s Word and trusted in him. He was at rest, serene, and eating his fill at the messianic table.
Then came the exodus of the man who loved purple:
Aconteció que murió el mendigo, y fue llevado por los ángeles al seno de Abraham; y murió también el rico, y fue sepultado.Y en el Hades alzó sus ojos, estando en tormentos, y vio de lejos a Abraham, y a Lázaro en su seno.
[start with …y murió tambien…]
You can be sure he had an impressive funeral! Everyone was there, and properly mourning. How marvelous his corpulent body looked in purple and byssus. He was then laid in a beautiful above-ground tomb. But that was not the end of the story.
Christ is not here indicating the geography or juxtaposition of Heaven and Hell—that they exist within view of each other and so on. This is a parable, not a historical account. At the most, it alludes to Hades as an intermediate state in which the dead await the final resurrection. As a parable, it is intended to teach principles, not to give an exhaustive picture of the afterlife. The rich man was in eternal torment. Massive eternal equity was underway. The eternal state will be perfectly equitable for everyone, though some will experience incredible reversals.
THE RICH MAN’S PLEA TO ABRAHAM (VV. 24–31)
A Plea for Himself
The rich man then pathetically cried across the distance, pleading,
Entonces él, dando voces, dijo: Padre Abraham, ten misericordia de mí, y envía a Lázaro para que moje la punta de su dedo en agua, y refresque mi lengua; porque estoy atormentado en esta llama.
His plea asserted his kinship with “Father Abraham” (in fact, he calls him “father” three times in all; cf. vv. 27, 30). The rich man, so insensitive in this life, may even have thought he was in good standing with Father Abraham and so assumed he had the right to say what should happen next. “Send Lazarus envía a Lázaro [the beggar he let die] … and cool my tongue y refresque mi lengua [the part of him that feasted during life on earth].” This was the end of his presumption and the beginning of his recompense. Fire is a punitive image. There is more than redress here—this is eternal punishment.
Note that Lazarus does not say a word in the entire parable. On earth he did not complain or blame God, and in Heaven he does not gloat or refuse to be an errand boy. There is a godly, regal silence.
Abraham does the answering:
Pero Abraham le dijo: Hijo, acuérdate que recibiste tus bienes en tu vida, y Lázaro también males; pero ahora éste es consolado aquí, y tú atormentado.
Abraham was actually quite tender in his response (“son” is literally “my child”). He acknowledged hereditary kinship but rejected the man’s spiritual right to share in the blessings. The rich man exemplified Jesus’ woe in the Sermon on the Plain:
Mas ¡ay de vosotros, ricos! porque ya tenéis vuestro consuelo.
Jesus was not teaching that there will be an automatic reversal of roles in Heaven, but rather that his judgment will be equitable.
“Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony” (v. 25). Abraham was actually quite tender in his response (“son” is literally “my child”). He acknowledged hereditary kinship but rejected the man’s spiritual right to share in the blessings. The rich man exemplified Jesus’ woe in the Sermon on the Plain: “Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort”(6:24). Jesus was not teaching that there will be an automatic reversal of roles in Heaven, but rather that his judgment will be equitable.
Jesus was not teaching that there will be an automatic reversal of roles in Heaven, but rather that his judgment will be equitable.
Abraham went on,
Además de todo esto, una gran sima está puesta entre nosotros y vosotros, de manera que los que quisieren pasar de aquí a vosotros, no pueden, ni de allá pasar acá.
Lucas 16:25
This “great chasm” (literally “yawning”) is unbridgeable. No surge of human sympathy can reach across it. While in this world, the rich man could have reached out to Lazarus at any time. But once in eternity the gulf was uncrossable.
“And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us” (v. 26). This “great chasm” (literally “yawning”) is unbridgeable. No surge of human sympathy can reach across it. While in this world, the rich man could have reached out to Lazarus at any time. But once in eternity the gulf was uncrossable.
A Plea for His Brothers
Now for the first time the man showed some interest in others: “
Entonces le dijo: Te ruego, pues, padre, que le envíes a la casa de mi padre,porque tengo cinco hermanos, para que les testifique, a fin de que no vengan ellos también a este lugar de tormento.
He figured that if Lazarus returned from the dead and gave an eyewitness account, his family would believe and so escape judgment.
Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment” (vv. 27, 28). He figured that if Lazarus returned from the dead and gave an eyewitness account, his family would believe and so escape judgment.
But Father Abraham thought otherwise:
Y Abraham le dijo: A Moisés y a los profetas tienen; óiganlos.
The patriarch said that those still alive on earth had the Word of God, and that is all they needed! If they would pay attention to that, as we noted earlier, they would heed the Scriptures’ great teaching regarding mercy, would see they were to love their neighbors as themselves, would see they were sinful and impotent, and would turn to God for mercy. In light of Christ’s ministry, if they read Moses and the Prophets they would begin to glimpse the need for a Messiah upon whom they could cast their souls.
“They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them” (v. 29). The patriarch said that those still alive on earth had the Word of God, and that is all they needed! If they would pay attention to that, as we noted earlier, they would heed the Scriptures’ great teaching regarding mercy, would see they were to love their neighbors as themselves, would see they were sinful and impotent, and would turn to God for mercy. In light of Christ’s ministry, if they read Moses and the Prophets they would begin to glimpse the need for a Messiah upon whom they could cast their souls.
Jesus later told the two disciples on the road to Emmaus,
Entonces él les dijo: ¡Oh insensatos, y tardos de corazón para creer todo lo que los profetas han dicho! ¿No era necesario que el Cristo padeciera estas cosas, y que entrara en su gloria? Y comenzando desde Moisés, y siguiendo por todos los profetas, les declaraba en todas las Escrituras lo que de él decían.
Lucas 2
If the rich man’s five brothers would give attention to God’s Word, they would need nothing else.
“ ‘How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself” (). If the rich man’s five brothers would give attention to God’s Word, they would need nothing else.
But the rich man disagreed:
Él entonces dijo: No, padre Abraham; pero si alguno fuere a ellos de entre los muertos, se arrepentirán.
The rich man’s insistence that if someone would return from the dead, his brothers would repent was a subtle way of excusing himself. He was implicitly arguing that he would have repented if a special messenger from the dead had come to him. He was saying that Moses and the Prophets, God’s Word, was not enough.
“ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent’ ” (v. 30). The rich man’s insistence that if someone would return from the dead, his brothers would repent was a subtle way of excusing himself. He was implicitly arguing that he would have repented if a special messenger from the dead had come to him. He was saying that Moses and the Prophets, God’s Word, was not enough.
This is exactly what our culture says today. “The Bible is not enough. The Resurrection is not enough. We need special ‘signs and wonders.’ Then we will believe.” How arrogant we humans are, daring to tell God what he must do if we are to believe. If God would just send ambassadors from the other side, great multitudes would believe. Would they? Jesus’ parable shouts a resounding no!
Jesus himself came from the other side, and though some believed, many, like the rich man and his brothers, did not believe. Abraham concluded,
Mas Abraham le dijo: Si no oyen a Moisés y a los profetas, tampoco se persuadirán aunque alguno se levantare de los muertos.
Those who have hardened their hearts to God’s Word refused Jesus even after he walked out of his own tomb. And it is still the same today.
“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (v. 31). Those who have hardened their hearts to God’s Word refused Jesus even after he walked out of his own tomb. And it is still the same today.
CLOSING REFLECTIONS
What does this ancient parable have to say to us who live in the light of the cross and the Resurrection? We too know from Moses and the Prophets that we must love God and love others as ourselves, that we are sinful and helpless to save ourselves, that Christ has suffered death and rose on the third day for our sins (cf. ). We also have the witness of Christ who rose from the dead, was seen by his disciples and hundreds of witnesses, and ascended into Heaven. We have too the entire witness of the New Testament, which expounds Christ to us. The New Testament writings include the Sermon on the Mount and the multiple ethical teachings of the epistles, which tell us how to live—even in regard to our use of riches.
As with the rich man, our use of our wealth in relation to the needs of our neighbors reveals our spiritual state. If we claim to be Christians (as the rich man claimed to be a son of Abraham), but our material wealth is amassed for our own pleasures, if we are not generous and compassionate in our use of wealth, if we hoard our money, if we only give what amounts to crumbs to others, then we do not truly believe God’s Word. We are deluded, and a mighty reversal awaits us.
If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? ()
Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? (, )
Are we Christians? Do we believe God’s Word? Then our faith will affect the way we use our wealth, because money speaks!
Hughes, R. K. (1998). Luke: that you may know the truth (pp. 154–161). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.
The closing scenes of this earth’s history are portrayed in the closing of the rich man’s history. The rich man claimed to be a son of Abraham, but he was separated from Abraham by an impassable gulf—a character wrongly developed. Abraham served God, following His word in faith and obedience. But the rich man was unmindful of God and of the needs of suffering humanity. The great gulf fixed between him and Abraham was the gulf of disobedience. There are many today who are following the same course. Though church members, they are unconverted. They may take part in the church service, they may chant the psalm, “As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after Thee, O God” (); but they testify to a falsehood. They are no more righteous in God’s sight than is the veriest sinner. The soul that longs after the excitement of worldly pleasure, the mind that is full of love for display, cannot serve God. Like the rich man in the parable, such a one has no inclination to war against the lust of the flesh. He longs to indulge appetite. He chooses the atmosphere of sin. He is suddenly snatched away by death, and he goes down to the grave with the character formed during his lifetime in copartnership with Satanic agencies. In the grave he has no power to choose anything, be it good or evil; for in the day when a man dies, his thoughts perish. (; , ).
When the voice of God awakes the dead, he will come from the grave with the same appetites and passions, the same likes and dislikes, that he cherished when living. God works no miracle to re-create a man who would not be re-created when he was granted every opportunity and provided with every facility. During his lifetime he took no delight in God, nor found pleasure in His service. His character is not in harmony with God, and he could not be happy in the heavenly family.
Today there is a class in our world who are self-righteous. They are not gluttons, they are not drunkards, they are not infidels; but they desire to live for themselves, not for God. He is not in their thoughts; therefore they are classed with unbelievers. Were it possible for them to enter the gates of the city of God, they could have no right to the tree of life, for when God’s commandments were laid before them with all their binding claims they said, No. They have not served God here; therefore they would not serve Him hereafter. They could not live in His presence, and they would feel that any place was preferable to heaven.
To learn of Christ means to receive His grace, which is His character. But those who do not appreciate and utilize the precious opportunities and sacred influences granted them on earth, are not fitted to take part in the pure devotion of heaven. Their characters are not molded according to the divine similitude. By their own neglect they have formed a chasm which nothing can bridge. Between them and the righteous there is a great gulf fixed.
White, E. G. (1900). Christ’s Object Lessons (pp. 269–271). Review and Herald Publishing Association.