June 13, 2007
The Pharisees: Legends in Their Own Minds
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) presents a series of problems for the interpreter. First, it is unique to Luke, denying the interpreter a potentially helpful synoptic parallel. Second, it names one of the characters. Third, it presents a scenario that is completely removed from day-to-day life in that the primary action is in the intermediate state. Finally, one of the characters is taken to the kolpon Abra'am , an understood term which is hapax .
Because one of the characters is given a name, something that never happens in any other parable, some have denied that it is a parable.(1) MacLeod explicitly argues that it is not a parable. Rather, Jesus has “(drawn) back the curtain on the existence of people in the afterlife.”(2) Bock splits lexical hairs by calling this an "example story" while denying that it is a parable.(3) Others object because it lacks an introduction that explicitly identifies it as a parable.
In favor of it being a parable, "form-critical analysis shows that it contains the characteristics of a parable (earthiness, brief plot, comparison of the situation to kingdom realities)."(4) This argument bears considerable weight, since the story closely resembles many generally accepted parables with these formal characteristics.
Countering the second objection, others note that the two story parables that precede it also lack a parabolic identifier. They begin instead with anqrwpoj tij (“a certain man”) exactly as the Rich Man and Lazarus does. The anti-parable interpreters do not use this linguistic cue against the parabolic nature of those stories, leading one to suggest that the argument is special pleading. It also appears that those who disallow the parabolic nature of this story generally do so to further the exposition of their systems related to the intermediate state. This appears to be question begging, and is similarly unconvincing.
History does not inform us of the origin of the Pharisees.(5) They may have evolved out of the reform efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah after the return from Babylonian exile.(6) In Jesus' day, they were generally regarded as authoritative interpreters of Torah.(7)
The Pharisees were not a monolithic group, and it appears there may have been several subsects. Nicodemus is noted to have spoken in Jesus' defense (John 7:50), and Joseph of Arimathea was a disciple (Matt. 27:57). Others warned Jesus of Herod's plots (Luke 13:31). Brad Young even goes so far as to intimate that Jesus may have been a Pharisee himself!(8) Even if He was, the bulk of the Pharisees were clearly His opponents, being from different subgroups.
As the self-ordained keepers of orthodoxy, the Pharisees had "built a fence around Torah"(9) by creating an immense body of additional rules beyond the 613 mitzvoth in Torah.(10) These were called “the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:5), and were used to regulate daily activity.
They were enamored of ritual purity (Matt. 15:1-2). They falsely thought they were truly the proper interpreters of Torah (Matt. 15:14, John 7:49). They avoided contact with “tax collectors and sinners,” two groups they thought to be irretrievably lost (Matt. 9:11), most likely to avoid defilement. They fasted frequently (Matt. 9:14). They had arbitrary rules about the Sabbath (Matt. 12:2).
The Pharisees developed a mindset that by following their rules, they would build up a stock of good deeds that would outweigh any bad deeds, thus guaranteeing immediate individual post-mortem compensation.(11) Confident in their rewards, they "justified themselves in the sight of men" (Luke 16:15). Almost every time Jesus gathered a crowd, they were in the mix, checking on what He had to say, often speaking up to “test' him (Luke 10:25).
The Rich Man was a Jew educated in Torah. We know this because he had five brothers (Lk 16:28) who "had Moses and the Prophets" (Luke 16:29). His clothing and continual feasting (Lk 16:19) indicate great wealth, which would have been seen by the Pharisees as a sign of divine favor (cf. Prov. 10:22). He probably avoided contact with Lazarus to maintain ceremonial purity, because if defiled he could not go to the Temple to pray (Luke 18:10). His characteristics thus suggest he may have been a Pharisee.
"Lazarus" is derived from Eliezer, which means "Whom God Helps." His condition rendered his name apparently non sequitur . He was completely destitute, having been "cast" (lit. Gk.) on the rich man's doorstep so that he would have a chance to have table scraps for food (Luke 16:20). This abandonment suggests he had no friends. To add insult to injury, he was covered in sores that stray dogs, unclean animals, licked, rendering him ceremonially unclean. He was so powerless he couldn't keep them away.
Hades , the destination of the rich man, is the term used in the LXX for sheol , the Hebrew word for the place of the dead. In the Old Testament, “the abode of the dead is pictured as a place beneath the earth to which one “goes down” (Gen. 42:38; Prov. 15:24; Ezek. 26:20) and as a place of gloomy darkness (Job 10:21–22), silence (Pss. 94:17; 115:17), and forgetfulness (Ps. 88:12). God is not remembered there and his praises are never sung (Pss. 6:5; 30:9; 115:17). Even God himself, it was believed, does not remember those who are there (Ps. 88:5, 11; Isa. 38:18). The dead were seen as permanently cut off from contact with the Lord and from participating in his activity in history.”(12) There is no hint of reward or punishment in sheol .(13)
The concept of sheol did not remain static. By the time of Christ, the idea that sheol was divided into regions had become established. This progression of thought came even though there was no prophetic voice for about 400 years.(14)
And thence I went to another place, and he showed me in the west another great and high mountain of hard rock. And there was in it four hollow places… Then Raphael… said unto me: ‘These hollow places have been created… that the spirits of the souls of the dead should assemble therein… And these places have been made to receive them till the day of their judgment…' Then I asked… ‘Why is one separated from the other?' And he answered… These three have been made that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And such a division has been made for the spirits of the righteous, in which there is the bright spring of water. And such has been made for sinners… Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain till the great day of judgment… (1 Enoch 22:1-12, partial)
People who died were thought to go to various regions based on their merits, with the wicked suffering in fire. The source of this belief is uncertain. It did not arise from the Old Testament, since there is no hint of either reward or punishment within the canonical literature. Various authors suggest syncretistic sources for the belief. Pagan Greek conceptions of death seem to have had the greatest influence.(15)
Kolpon Abra'am , the "bosom of Abraham," is hapax. Jesus used it as an understood term, and it is clear that the disciples and Pharisees understood it, since no editorial explanation appears in the text (cf. John 2:19-21). Several authors note that the visual image is similar to the Last Supper where John is described as “reclining on Jesus' breast” (John 13:23).(16) This presents the idea of rest as an honored guest at a meal, but unfortunately tells us nothing about where this event occurs.
Unlike words where we can extrapolate etymologically, this is an obscure cultural term. This has led some authors to suggest that it refers to a region within sheol , as suggested in 1 Enoch.(17) Others have identified it as heaven, perhaps because the rich man "lifted up his eyes" and saw Lazarus (Luke 16:23).(18) These identifications are speculative, since very few authors state a reason for their choice.
Contemporary non-canonical literature has proven to be no help, since no such extant work identifies the kolpon Abra'am . Several of the ante-Nicene fathers gloss the term, suggesting that their readers understand it. The only known ancient author who clearly expounds the meaning of this term is Hippolytus (ca. 170-236). He explains kolpon Abra'am as a locale within hades/sheol where "the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location. And we call it by the name Abraham's bosom."(19) He also notes that, "the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained" in hades/sheol awaiting the final judgment. We must be cautious, however, since this is about two centuries after Christ, and could represent a late development.
Hippolytus' explanation concurs with 1 Enoch, which is also in agreement with Josephus' comments about the Pharisees:
They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again.(20)
Thus, it appears that the only identifiable direct evidence, however limited, identifies the kolpon Abra'am as a region within the place of the dead, not a location in heaven.
At this point, we must be careful. We are not developing a system of the intermediate state. In no way are we attempting to definitively identify the exact destination of those who die. We are limiting our discussion at this point to the identification of the “Bosom of Abraham” as understood by the Pharisees . As we will see shortly, there is adequate reason to question whether the Pharisees were correct in their beliefs regarding the intermediate state. But for purposes of interpreting the parable, we must understand the term as they did.
Some authors have taken “lifted up his eyes” as an indication that the rich man was in sheol while Lazarus was in heaven.(21) As already discussed, this is not what the Pharisees believed, but the phrase is worth exploring. This expression is used twenty-one times in the Old Testament. In every case, it expresses the act of redirecting one's gaze, but without indicating a gaze toward heaven. In three cases, the object sighted is above the ground, but none of these are "heavenward." Thus, this expression should merely be taken to indicate a change from local to distant focus. An alternate form, “lift up your eyes” is used seventeen times in the Old Testament, and unless specifically stated, the object of interest is again at ground level. The only time we see the expression used to indicate a view of heaven is in Psalm 123:1 where we read, “To Thee I will lift up my eyes, O Thou who art enthroned in the heavens!” The heavenward direction is not intrinsic to the expression, but is supplied by the remainder of the passage.
Finally, a "chasm" is a wide space between two locations on generally the same level. Its primary effect is to create an impassible barrier. By way of illustration, consider the Grand Canyon. The North and South Rims are about the same elevation, and travel directly between them is a practical impossibility.
Some have argued that the description of hades/sheol and the Bosom of Abraham is literal and accurate, instructing us in the nature of the intermediate state.(22) Others caution against attempting to develop systematic theology from elements of parables that are not central to the message of the parable.(23) When we examine this parable several facts become clear.
First, the description of the intermediate state in the parable is different from any found in the Old Testament. In particular, no Old Testament passage indicates any form of punishment in sheol . Flames (Luke 16:24) are conspicuously absent. Second, the uniform metaphor for death in the both Testaments is "sleep" (1 Kings 2:1, 11:21; John 11:11; Acts 7:60; 1 Cor. 15:6; 1 Thess. 4:14-15, etc.).(24) This strongly suggests that death is an unconscious state consistent with Ecclesiastes 9:10.
Next, when we examine the story of Adam's creation, we find that when God breathed the breath of life into his body, Adam "became a living soul" (Gen. 2:7). He did not acquire a soul, he became one. If we back up to Genesis 1, we discover that fish, other marine creatures, "cattle," "creeping things," and "beasts of the earth" are all "souls" as well (Gen. 1:20, 21, 24, lit. Heb.). When we look toward the end of time, during the second Bowl judgment all those marine "souls" die (Rev. 16:3, lit. Gk.). Finally, Jesus declared that the burning of the wicked would happen "at the end of the age" (Matt. 13:30, 40-42), which He identified as His parousia (Matt. 28:20). These lines of evidence, as well as others too voluminous for this paper indicate that at the very least, there is a prima facie case that the picture of the intermediate state in the parable is not correct.
Curiously, we need not believe in soul sleep to reach this conclusion. Most modern Christians believe that the soul of the saint goes to heaven at death. If this is the case, since the Bosom of Abraham was understood by the Pharisees to be a region in sheol , not a place in heaven, the modern conception of the intermediate state is also in tension with them. Thus, both modern conceptions conflict with the Pharisaic understanding of the Bosom of Abraham.(25)
As a result, the parable should not be used to develop a system of the intermediate state. Such an effort will only create difficulties, and, if the parable is understood according to Pharisaic beliefs, it will contradict virtually all modern beliefs regarding the intermediate state. This raises a different question. "In teaching, would Jesus use an erroneous belief without correcting it?" Chafer argues that if the description of the intermediate state is not exact, Jesus is lying.(26)
In Matthew 10:28 is instructive. There, Jesus gave His disciples an advertising message. The people were not to fear the Romans who could "destroy the body but not the soul." They were to fear God who could "destroy body and soul in hell." Based on the discussion of soul sleep immediately above, this call appeals to a popular belief, but is theologically incorrect.
If we adhere to the belief in immortality of the soul, we have a different, but parallel theological problem. Jesus' appeal contradicts this popular modern belief, since He declares that He can “destroy… the soul in hell.” In either case, the passage leaves a popular error uncorrected.
The point of advertising is not to correct misconceptions. It is to attract the audience. That is all that is important. If Jesus were to try to correct theological errors while advertising, He would destroy its effect. His focus would be directed away from the primary message. So in Matthew 10:28, Jesus ignored possible theological errors. Instead, He drove the message directly to His main point.(27)
In the parable of the Treasure Found in the Field (Matt. 13:44), a good case can be made that the man who found the treasure acted immorally. Yet Jesus implicitly commended the man who found the treasure. The theological error was not central to the message and correcting it would have destroyed the illustration. Other examples could be proffered.
Since Jesus tolerated a theological error at face value in more than one place, there is no reason that He shouldn't be able to tolerate a different error in another place. His major point was that the Pharisaic belief systems were false because the Pharisees were not listening to God's prophets. To get to His conclusion, an argument contradicting their belief about the intermediate state would have been a distraction at best. At worst, it would have completely destroyed the thread of His argument. Therefore, he treated their system regarding the intermediate state as if true in order to press the more important message.
The pericope in which the parable is found begins in Luke 14:1 where Jesus went "into the house of one of the rulers of the Pharisees on a sabbath to eat bread." The guests included "lawyers and other Pharisees" (Luke 14:2). When a man with dropsy is brought, Jesus confronted them. "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath, or not?" (Luke 14:3). Hearing no objection, He healed the man and sent him away (Luke 14:4). Jesus followed this with a challenge about pulling out an ass or an ox that had fallen into a well on the Sabbath (Luke 14:5). When no response came, Jesus continued into a series of stronger challenges. And He shifted from asking direct questions to creating hypotheticals via parables.
With the parable of the Wedding Feast, Jesus subtly suggested that in the kingdom those with high opinions of themselves would be brought low, and the low elevated (Luke 14:11). Next, in the parable of the Great Supper, He implied that any who refused His call would be excluded from "my supper" (Luke 14:24). This Messianic banquet is a major theme of the Old Testament prophets (cf. Isa. 25:6-8), and it is difficult to imagine that the Pharisees did not understand that Jesus was implying they'd be shut out of the Messiah's kingdom.
In response to deafening silence, Jesus continued into the Parables of the Tower Builder and Warring King, advising the Pharisees that answering His call would require "all that they had" (Luke 14:33). The Parable of Salt ends these challenges with a veiled inference that the Pharisees would become worthless.
At this point Jesus bolstered His challenge with, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (Luke 14:35). This exhortation, recorded eight times in the synoptics, is an echo of the Shema , the foundational statement of Jewish faith. "Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut. 6:4). In making this call, Jesus claimed to be no less than a prophet of Moses' stature. After all, He was demanding no less adherence to His pronouncements than to those of Moses, the greatest prophet before the Messiah (cf. Deut., 18:15, 18; John 1:21, 7:40). His words were to be a "sign" on their hands, foreheads, and houses (Deut. 6:6-9).
We must not stop here. As “the Prophet” (Matt. 21:11, John 1:21), Jesus was not claiming to merely have the prophetic oracles. The Prophet would speak face-to-face with God, just as Moses did (Deut. 34:10). Jesus had made that very claim earlier with many witnesses (John 6:17-20). The listeners recognized it was a claim to be the Messiah. If true, nothing less than radical obedience was acceptable. If false, the pretender must be killed (Deut. 18:20).
It is not entirely clear whether chapter 15 is a chronological continuation of chapter 14 or an editorial juxtaposition for thematic effect. In any case, the Pharisees noted that "tax collectors and sinners" were Jesus' common dinner companions (Luke 15:1-2). Their “grumbling” led Jesus to tell the Parables of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:4-7) and the Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10), showing God's joy when one lost person repents. These parables more directly challenged the Pharisees, since they regarded "tax collectors and sinners" as people who were beyond repentance and redemption, deserving only condemnation and contempt. Any association with them was defiling.
Answering this objection, Jesus continued with the Parable of the Lost Son (Luke 15:11-32). There, a son who had committed the "unpardonable" sin of wishing his father dead had squandered his inheritance. Out of options, he worked with pigs, defiling himself. In this defiled state he returned home, unworthy to be even a servant. But his father welcomed him with the finest he could provide. In the context of the preceding parables, Jesus was saying that Pharisaic beliefs linking ritual purity and acceptance by God were totally wrong. Forgiveness was available to all.
Moving strongly forward, Jesus presented the Unjust Steward (Luke 16:1-13). This man administered usurious loans. To avoid the prohibited practice of charging interest (Exod. 22:25; Deut. 23:19-20), Pharisees would include the interest as part of the principal. The steward also appears to have been embezzling. When threatened with firing for his embezzlement, the steward went to the debtors and reduced the notes to the proper amounts, bringing them in line with the Mosaic prescriptions. This brought in enough money to result in commendation. Jesus concluded with a strong command regarding faithfulness in all things. This was difficult, since the Pharisees were "lovers of money" (Luke 16:14).
Now Jesus moved to direct accusation. The Pharisees “justify themselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts!” (Luke 16:15) He hammered home the idea that the Pharisees were trying to force themselves into the kingdom instead of listening to the graceful God of the Law and the Prophets. They divorce at will (Luke 16:18). And finally He delivered the coup de grace.
Lazarus was the poorest of the poor. In conventional Jewish thought, this was evidence of his unworthiness. He had no friends, and was defiled by the dogs. But his unclean state was unimportant to God, who sent His angels to “carry him to Abraham's Bosom” when he died (Luke 16:22). His pitiful life status was completely reversed, as he entered a place of repose and reward. His name was proved true. He has no further direct involvement in the story.
The rich man was presumably a Pharisee, ritually pure, and "blessed by God" as evidenced by his extreme wealth.(28) He had lived a life of command. He did not work, and had servants and employees to take care of everything. Almost certainly he was "Torah-observant" in the manner of the Pharisees. He did all the “required” formal acts of piety, and probably did many “works of the law” (Rom 3:20, Gal 2:16). We may properly expect that he made all the proper sacrifices and prayers at the Temple. But he ignored God's commands to care for the poor. He knew Lazarus' name, confirming that he knew Lazarus' plight before death. This left him without any excuse for his failure to be merciful to Lazarus. He was buried (Lk 16:22) in proper form, avoiding the curse of not being buried (Deut 21:22-23).
The fates of both men were fixed at death. No change was possible, and the rich man seemed to recognize this since he made no attempt to repent. He initially maintained his imperious stance, apparently believing at first that his state was improper or a mistake. He certainly expected that fates would be reversed at death, but to him this meant that the oppressed Jews would be rewarded while the oppressing Romans would suffer.(29)
In torment (Lk 16:24), the rich man commanded Abraham to send Lazarus to comfort him. Lazarus had water, and the rich man, an “observant” Jew, obviously “deserved” some. Abraham rebuffed his directive, noting that the rich man had received his rewards during life while Lazarus had not (Lk 16:25). Further, there is a "fixed" impassible barrier, implying that the rich man's status is irreversible (Lk 16:26). Recognizing the authority of the patriarch, the rich man moderated his attitude and asked for Lazarus to warn his brothers (Lk 16:27-28).
Abraham's response is instructive. The brothers already have "Moses and the prophets" (16:29), but by implication are not listening to them. They have ignored the Shema , and have written their own words on their foreheads and hands rather than the words of God. Their thoughts and deeds were far from God (cf. Isa 29:13). They were physically sons of Abraham (Lk 16:25), but they were not doing the deeds of Abraham (cf. Jn 8:39).
The written words of God in the Tanakh are a sufficient guide for salvation (2 Tim 3:15). If God's voice there is not enough, it won't matter if someone returns from the dead. His voice won't be heard, either (16:31). The Pharisees were a “wicked generation (that) seeks for a sign” (Luke 11:29), but “no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah.” Jesus would return from the dead on the third day in fulfillment of prophecy, but that sign would be ignored.
The reversal of status in this parable is a powerful literary tool to gain the attention of the audience, in part because it is the “wrong” reversal. Jesus presented a series of challenges to the Pharisees. In each case he showed that their interpretation of scripture served their own aggrandizement, not God's mission to the lost. Using the Shema, Jesus challenged them to listen to His voice as the prophetic voice of God. They continued to resist, "grumbling" (Luke 15:2) and "scoffing" (Luke 16:14). Instead of the Romans ending in flames, the Pharisee whose life was based on honoring himself who found himself in torment.
Jesus fired a final salvo at the self-important false interpreters of scripture. They were focused on externalities, but God looks on the heart (1 Sam. 16:7). Instead of listening to God, they were listening to themselves. They had been circumcised outwardly in their flesh, but not in their hearts (Deut. 30:6, Rom. 2:28-29). They were not part of true Israel (cf. John 3:3, Exod. 12:48, Deut. 6:4). Unless they were willing to listen to the voice of God in the Tanakh, as presented by its very author, they wouldn't listen to Him giving the same message after the resurrection (cf. Luke 24:25-27). Indeed, they sent their own to persecute God's people (Acts 22:3-6). They had "hardened their hearts" (Ps. 95:8; Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7).
God gave many instructions in the Tanakh. They are summed up in one statement.
He has told you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. (Mic. 6:8)
Jesus summed up the Pharisees in another succinct passage.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices – mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law – justice, mercy, and faithfulness.” (Matt. 23:23 NIV)
1. Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Gospel Preaching,” Bibliotheca Sacra 95 (1938): 361, J. R. Mantey, “”Is Death the only Punishment for Unbelievers?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 112 (1955): 342, Millard J. Erickson, “Is There Opportunity for Salvation after Death?,” Bibliotheca Sacra 152 (1995): 142, L. Richards, The 365 day Devotional Commentary . (Wheaton, Ill.: Victor, 1990), 743.
2. David J. MacLeod, “The Sixth “Last Thing”: The Last Judgment and the End of the World, (Rev. 20:11-15),” Bibliotheca Sacra 157 (2000), 316.
3. Darrell S. Bock, The IVP New Testament Commentary: Luke (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1994), Luke 16:19-31.
4. Grant R. Osborne, “Historical Criticism and the Evangelical,” Journal of the Evangelical Society 42, (1999): 205.
5. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, I. H. Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 609.
6. L. Ryken, J. Wilhoit, T. Longman, et al. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 639.
7. Josephus, Wars of the Jews ii. 162, 3.
8. Brad Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). Young does not directly state his belief that Jesus was a Pharisee, but hints at it throughout the book in the way he describes Jesus using Pharisaic argument in both content and style.
10. David Noel Freedman (ed.), Eerdman's Bible Dictionary , “The Traditions of the Elders" [in Logos Library ], (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).
11. David Powys, ‘Hell': A Hard Look at a Hard Question (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1997), 214.
12. W. A. Elwell, & P. W. Comfort, Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001), 364.
13. Philip. S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2002), 73.
14. Josephus, Against Apion i, 41.
15. William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (Phillipsburg, N. J., Presbyterian and Reformed: 2003), 833.
16. Kenneth L. Barker, John R. Kohlenberger III, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol 8. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 991-992., P. J. Achtenmeier, Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco, Harper & Row: 1985), “Abraham's Bosom.”
18. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335-394) “On the Soul and Resurrection” Fathers of The Church 58:232-234 (Washington, D.C., Catholic University of America Press: 1947), in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture , Luke 16:23-26, Logos Electronic Edition., Bock, op. cit., John Calvin, Commentaries (Luke 16:19), Galaxie Software, Matthew Henry, (Luke 16:19-31), A. Knowles, The Bible Guide . (Minneapolis, Augsburg: 2001), 488, Simon Kistemaker, The Parables (Grand Rapids, Baker: 2005), 196.
19. "An Extract Out of Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades" in William Whiston's translation of The Works of Josephus as quoted in Ed Christian, "The Rich Man and Lazarus, Abraham's Bosom, and the Biblical Penalty Karet ("Cut Off")", presented at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, November 13, 2003.
20. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews , 18.1.14, in William Whiston, The Complete Works of Josephus (Peabody, Hendrickson: 1987).
21. Christopher W. Morgan, et. al., Hell Under Fire (Grand Rapids, Zondervan: 2004), 139.
23. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol 8. , 991-992.
24. BibleWorks identifies 36 passages in the NAS Old Testament where “(X) slept with his fathers” is used as a metaphor for the death of the person.
25. Curiously, if we consider the Roman Catholic dogma of Purgatory, we have a third doctrine contrary to the Pharisaic belief.
27. This conclusion is consistent with the comments of Green, et. al. (Green, J. B., McKnight, S., & Marshall, I. H. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1992), 311) and Powys (op. cit., 289).
29. The Pharisees believed in a reversal of fates after death, but this reversal generally dealt with rewards for oppressed Jews while the oppressing Romans suffered penalties. See The IVP Background Commentary, New Testament , Craig S. Keener, Editor (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1993), Luke 16:24-26.