Your teaching strengthen my faith. Prayers for us and our families. Thank you, Sam

Thank you for tying in the OT and NT teachings. The whole Bible is beautifully woven together to illuminate Christ and what He did for us. The hope we have is precious.

God bless you and your family, Chad. Thank you for the thorough study. Very helpful!

So grateful for the amazing resource of these videos. They have been so very helpful to me. Thank you.

Learning from the lens of biblical hebraic roots. Great lesson🙌🏻 Thank you, Chad!

Yet another wonderful and invaluable teach brother Chad. Here are a few comments. (20:26) "The rich man in Hades wants Abraham to send Laz'arus as a servant". A servant to do what? To put one drop of water on his finger, and then put that in his mouth to cool his tongue? This seems like a poor fit to the context. A rich man looking for a servant wants far more than a drop of water, and doesn't want it from the finger of a servant. An ask that small from a rich man means he has accepted defeat and humility, and is pleading for a small act of mercy. It means he has repented in Hades, repentance that comes too late. Repentance after judgment is too late. (20:45) "It's a good indication that the afterlife does not change people." I think the message is that the afterlife does change people, but if we wait until after judgment to change, we have changed too late. There is an indication that's what this scripture means. Mercy not entitlement is the context of it. (24:05) "The rich man knows that like himself his brothers will not listen to Moses and the Prophets and wants Abraham to send Lazarus to be a preacher to them." This is evidence of profound changes in the rich man, to send the poor man Laz'arus to bring the message of repentance to the non-believers. Rich men don't send servants to save souls unless they have had a spiritual awakening, which came too late for the rich man. (25:30) "Faith based solely on miracles has an extremely short shelf life." There must be a large difference in witnessing a miracle and only hearing about it. This should be especially so when the miracle is resurrection from the dead, which is unlike any other miracle. The essence of Christ's teaching is that witnessing a miracle is a grace leading one to faith, i.e., the blessing of faith to the few who get there by witnessing the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Blessed are they who believe without seeing acknowledges that the miracle of resurrection alone can be enough if you see it yourself, but merely hearing of resurrection and ascension is a hard path to faith, not the easy one that witness uniquely provides. (25:45) "Just read the Torah, look what happened to the Israelites... they saw miracle after miracle... and what happened... rebellion and punishment". Amen to that. Isn't that why God sent his son to us because exodus, water from rocks and parting seas did not rescue man from his degenerative course? The Torah has three resurrections, two of children, and one of a corpse upon touching the Hebrew Prophet Elisha's bone is a grave. That is not what the rich man was pleading with Abraham to do. The rich man was pleading that Laz'arus' body be raised from dead, and then have him use that miracle status to preach repentance. (26:45) "If they won't give heed to Moses and the Prophets then nothing [including Laz'arus' resurrection and preaching] is going to work". The context is Jesus is telling the story of Laz'arus and the rich man as a past event with the story arc of Abraham saying to his "son" in Hades the his "five brothers" won't "be convinced if some one should rise from the dead" and repeat the lessons of Moses and the Prophets. Luke does not explain the moral of the parable nor say that Jesus agreed with Abraham's admonition that sinful people won't repent because a resurrected dead person is sent to preach the word of God. I think that is the point-- that Abraham was wrong, and that a resurrected Laz'arus with Moses and the Prophets in his words might have convinced them. And as Luke [24:46] later explains, that is what Jesus himself did. Jesus said: " "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead..." The dead rising and preaching repentance works on the living which is the primal teaching of Christianity, but it is too late when that teaching comes too late after judgment.

You’re such a great teacher. Thank you brother.

Oh this is good! When you observed that there is a case for the rich man being Ciaphas this parable makes so much more sense. Ciaphas, I believe was a Sadducee, which would make it offensive when Jesus has the rich man affirming a “resurrection.” If you go back to Israel and have not been to the Wahl Museum in Jerusalem I highly recommend it as it is believed to be Ciaphas house and you get a flavor for the level of wealth he had. Great video again, Chad!

Thank you, Chad, for this teaching......and I especially like the prayer at the end....

Had one of those serendipitous moments when you were talking about how people in hell are there through their own will and I said out loud, "Just like The Great Divorce", then you quoted the book! LOL Well done, my friend. Great exegesis.

Love the teaching. Found you on tic tok. Amen brother bless you as you go.

Another phenomenal teaching

Excellent teaching. You always do such good work, brother. I needed to hear this tonight. Thank you for your faithfulness.

I agree that the story of Lazarus and the rich man should be considered a parable. But I don't see why the story, by being a parable, should be limited in application, when it also contains historical elements (like the reference to Caiaphas) as well as theological elements (like the nature of the afterlife). More often than not, passages of Scripture serve multiple purposes simultaneously.

Thank you so much for this and all your videos! I am growing in understanding God’s Word so much from what you share on KZfaq . This especially helped me today with a deep question I’ve had on the life after death experience and whether or not people can change for the better after death. It’s even helped me with fears I’ve had in this present life. Thank you so much

Thank you Chad •

Amen and AMEN again 🙏🏽

God bless

Amen...!!

There are tales from midrash of Eliezer walking throughout the earth, disguised as a beggar, to see how well his master’s children keep the Torah-especially how well they care for the poor and show hospitality to strangers. Eliezer then reports back to his master, telling Abraham of his descendants’ faithfulness or faithlessness. Jews were encouraged to welcome strangers because one of them might be Eliezer in disguise (this is possibly the background for Hebrews 13:2). From John R. Donahue, The Gospel in Parable and L. I. Rabinowitz, “The Study of a Midrash,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 58, no. 2.

Chad, you have acquired most favored status among commentators in my world. You always suprise me with new insights and you always bless me with your 24 karat quality of knowledge. That said, I would like to recommend that you look into Prof. Richard Bauchams research on this parable in his excellent scholarly work titled "The fate of the dead". There he discovers that this parable actually preexisted Jesus in the form of a popular justice/hope motif in as many as six different variations in Jewish religious tradition and which actually seems to have been traced to have originated in Egyptian lore. We find in this motif a common pattern of wealth and compassion disparity being rectified in the afterlife by way of a reversal of fortunes. He details a particular version called Bar Majar and the poor scholars. In it there are two poor jewish scholars and a rich tax collector named Bar Majar. (Note in this version the antagonist is granted a name but not the protagonist) The tax collecter is not held in high regard by the people and so he tries to win favor by holding a banquet, but no one shows up. Sound familiar? One of the poor scholars dies and the tax collector also dies. The poor jewish scholars surviving friend then has a dream in which he sees his friend frolicking in paradise and drinking from the springs of life, while the tax collector is chained to a stake next to a river. The chain is long enough to keep his tongue and inch away from the water. The paralells are undeniable. I think this adds tremendous weight to the notion that Jesus is rebuking hoarding and indifference to the poor rather that setting forth a precise theology of the afterlife. Further, Jesus seems to sabotage any attempt at using the parable as an afterlife revelation in as much as he sets forth a soteriology that is in complete defiance of New Testament theology. Abraham says the reason that the arrangement of the two souls is so, is because in life Lazarus had "bad things" and so now he is getting his "good things". Wheras the rich man had his "good things" and now is getting his "bad things". This speaks of a soteriology completely disconnected from sin and righteousness. As such if we are to demand a literal interpretation of this story as a descriptor of judgement, then we would have to say that people who suffered in this life are granted comfort in the next life simply because of the degree of thier suffering rather than faith in Christ.

1 Timothy 4:10 - The New International Version (NIV) 10 That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. 1 Cor 15:22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive 1 John 2:2 New International Version 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I'm not so sure that parable isn't aimed directly at the Pharisees as v-14 begins: Luke 16:14-15 (NASB) 14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. Was Jesus using this parable to call out the Pharisees on their love of money and their claim to be "Children of Abraham"? Like to hear your thoughts.

The importance of not naming the main character in a parable is so that the person the parable is directed to, is more likely to take it to heart. This parable is clearly directed at the Pharisees and the people of Judah in general. That's why the Rich Man is not named. Lazarus is named, but to think he's a main character is absurd. He shouldn't even be in the title, he has basically zero role. Never even speaks one word. But there is a purpose to him, and it's also why he NEEDED to be named. Jesus just taught a parable about another rich man, and it specifically says the Pharisees were lovers of money and scoffed at him. At the time, the Pharisees also thought that riches were a sign of God's favor. So this Parable was a direct assault on their false belief about riches equaling God's favor. It was also a warning to them about the fate of Judah and the suffering they would endure for the next 2000 years. weird

It is possible that the purple and linen could be referring to the tribe of Judah since they were the kingly tribe and it was Judah who had 5 brothers ( the others were half brothers ) The reference to riches could be that they had to oracles of God which they wouldn’t share even the crumbs because they considered gentiles as dogs. It might be that the reference to Moses and the prophets Yehoshua is referring to Himself because He is the one who would rise from the dead and many would not believe ( a prophetic picture ). Got Torah Got Truth

Love your work, but wouldn’t the interpretation of Abraham’s bosom as Heaven/God’s presence negate the work Jesus did upon His bodily death? It’s in 1 Peter and in the Apostle’s Creed. Flavius Josephus also explains Sheol to the Greeks in a letter that explains Abraham’s bosom as the holding place in Sheol for the righteous. It also explains that there is a prison where the heat from the lake of fire can be felt, where the unrighteous are imprisoned. This would be the contemporary Jewish understanding of Sheol during Jesus’ time.

If the rich man is indeed in Hell, why he felt compassion and love? It says that the damned has only hatred in hell, no space for GOD who is love. Let me know the explanation.

Parables are meant to shed light on something. Like for instance, if you were talking about Usain Bolt the greatest sprinter of all-time, you might say, "There is a man from Jamaica, who is an absolute cheetah." This would be a metaphoric parable. People would understand that just like a cheetah is the fastest land animal, so Usain Bolt is the fastest sprinter. But it would make no sense, even metaphorically to call Usain bolt a snail or a sloth. It would not make sense literally or metaphorically. It makes no sense whatsoever to tell a parable about annihilation by describing someone dying and then instantly going into conscious torment in flames. What is the metaphorical meaning of a person being conscious enough to carry on a rational conversation while describing how he is "...in torment in these flames." Does this really sound like annihilation or torment? Revelation 20:10 says, "And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be TORMENTED day and night FOREVER and ever. . .Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if ANYONE"S name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." By the way, the word torment is translated from the Greek word Basanismos, and it means to torture. It absolutely does NOT mean to annihilate and put out of existence. Revelation 14:9-11 says, "“If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand...He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have NO REST DAY OR NIGHT, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” If an unrepentant sinner is annihilated in hell, (put out of existence) the phrase "NO REST DAY OR NIGHT" makes no sense.

Hi Chad, great explanation. I have a question. Is the rich man in purgatory or hell? Someone said he is in purgatory bacause if he was in hell he would not care if his brothers go there but if he's in purgatory he could pass to heaven and yet there's a gulf preventing passing from where he is to heaven. Can you please explain?

The contact starts and Luke 15 × 5 fold parable.A he addresses the pharisees.Do you think the after life is 2 men talking to each other?You gotta be out of your mind

And you thought it was in your power to throw the name of the parable.In a different order

It is a parable. We know this simply because Jesus rejected the false teachings of the Pharisees including the teaching of the immortality of the soul (Mt 23). And riches nor being poor means anything as to the outcome. Nor is it an indication of one being better than the other. So here is the meaning behind this whole section: Jesus was again calling out the religious leaders. They looked down on beggers and tax collectors and prostitutes as unworthy of their compassion or attention yet these were the ones begging for spiritual truths. That is why they are favored. And that is simply it. Same applies today. Many religious leaders continue ceremonies that are pagan in origin and they know this and refuse to stop them. This includes actual teaching from the bible. Most do not do it. This is an impediment to those begging for spiritual truth and refreshment from the scriptures. (Another highlight, Lazarus says he wanted a sign. In other words the law and the prophets weren't enough but Jesus had said no other sign would be given except that of Jonah. Another sign would eliminate the need to preach and would not show why the traditions of the Judaism were not longer needed. (Mt 16:1-4, 12:38-41) Jonah was enough to get Nineveh to repent. Jesus even says in John 5:39 "If you believed Moses you'd believe in me." But they rejected him.)

What did Moses preach that Jesus also preached? Commandment keeping. THAT would include the 4th commandment. Its one of the commandments that Mother Rome changed and in her own literature, she says that Sunday is her MARK. Here: Sunday is our MARK or authority...the church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.” Catholic Record of London, Ontario, September 1, 1923. “Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change (Saturday Sabbath to Sunday) was her act...And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical authority in religious things.” H.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons. “Protestants...accept Sunday rather than Saturday as the day for public worship after the Catholic Church made the change...But the Protestant mind does not seem to realize that...In observing the Sunday, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.” Our Sunday Visitor, February 15, 1950.

True statements. However I'm a little disappointed that you don't mention being renewed in the mind ... moving toward transformation. Not perfection. Not free from temptation. And my identity is not tied to my sure salvation, but to my imagebearing status as a witness for Christ as found in Eph 3.10. I'd love to see more exhortation toward being a son or daughter of the last Adam with the missional emphasis. Own that dear Christian and serve; watch temptations at least abate some. Seek to let God's love replace thoughts that lead to temptations. Take Ephesians 3.16-20 to heart and be sanctified! My journey recognized too much Western culture appropriation rather than being transformed, (Ro 12.1-2). And yes, I'm a secure in Christ sinnersaved by grace. ...still tempted too. Shalom unto my sisters and brothers in your journey.

Though this pharisee sounds like religious people in your organization.They feast sumptuously while the congregation goes poor

The theme of poverty is not about a theme of poverty.It's satire and ridicule the pharisees into.It's addre it's not a theme that I have to life

I disagree. The concept of the eternal soul is totally of Greek origin. The Pharisees did believe in a modified Greek Hades, replacing Charon with Adam or Abraham. We can't look at this parable with Jewish eyes, because the Jews did not believe in an eternal soul. We have to look at this parable through the eyes of Hellenized, paganized Jews such as the Pharisees.

It’s not a parable. Most ppl believe it is a true story.