//This verse concludes a well-known parable in the Gospel of Luke. Lazarus, a poor beggar, sits outside the mansion of an uncaring rich man. When the two die, Lazarus goes to a place of comfort, in the bosom of Abraham, while the rich man lands in torment. The rich man then begs Abraham to resurrect Lazarus and send him to the rich man’s family, warning them of a horrible afterlife if they do not repent.

 Abraham answers that even if Lazarus did rise from the dead, they would not believe.

 Have you ever wondered if this parable influenced the story in John’s Gospel of the raising of a man named Lazarus? In John’s Gospel, immediately after Lazarus rises from the dead, the story transitions into the effect this miracle had on the Pharisees. It had none; they didn’t believe even though “one rose from the dead.”

Many scholars propose that Luke’s rendition of Lazarus has a foundation in Greek storytelling. The place of fiery torment is clearly of Greek influence. But could John’s story be another rendition of the same? I am really curious, now, to know the original Greek Lazarus story.

//In this passage, Jesus warns Israel of the coming day when Jerusalem would be destroyed (it happened about 40 years later). Judeans would have to escape into the mountains! Woe to mothers who are with child!

But Matthew, when he copies Mark’s warning, adds a phrase: “neither on the Sabbath day.” Why?

Matthew, scholars often explain, is the most “Jewish” of the four Gospels. Matthew has a high respect for the Law. It is Matthew who reports that “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

It’s therefore expected that Matthew would retain his respect for the Sabbath as well. So, woe to Jerusalem’s citizens if its destruction happens on a Sabbath! If the call to flee comes on the Sabbath, it could not be obeyed by observant Jews!

//These are the words of the Lord to Ezekiel. Note the phrase “son of man,” which Ezekiel uses often to refer to himself. In time, however, this phrase took on messianic and eschatological connotations. See especially the books of Daniel and Enoch. Jesus took the title upon himself, as evidence of his messiahship.

I mention in my book about John’s Gospel that i do not think it is appropriate to read the Fourth Gospel chronologically, as if Jesus made several trips to Jerusalem. More likely, Jesus made but one fateful trip to Jerusalem, the big city, during his ministry. That is the story the other three gospels tell. The Jesus story is about a small-town sage, anointed by God as the Messiah, who must carry his message of doom to the big city of Jerusalem.

But why? Perhaps the answer is in today’s verse. If Jesus saw himself as the Son of Man, he would have understood that his mission was to eventually enter God’s holy city, to cleanse the Temple, and to prophesy Jerusalem’s destruction.

//This verse harks back to chapter ten, verse 1, where it explains that the two sons of Aaron—Nadab and Abihu—prepared the incense burner incorrectly (perhaps adding the wrong ingredients) and God killed them. “There went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them.” This appears to shake the faith of Aaron, and indeed, nothing about the incident is treated as out of the ordinary … as if such deaths were a common event.

Perhaps they were. Six chapters later when this incident is recalled, there is no mention of improperly preparing the incense. Instead, the explanation for their deaths is very simple, the way it is described in the original Hebrew: they just got too close to God. One is reminded of the story of Uzza, as the ark of the covenant was being transported by oxen. The animals stumbled, and Uzza reached out to steady the ark, and the Lord “struck him down.” Was Uzza doing something wrong, or did he simply get too close to God?

//In the book of Esther, queen Vashti upsets the king by asserting her independence (she refuses to dance for the king and his pals), and King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) decides he must replace her. It won’t do for men—especially the king—to tolerate such disrespect from their wives. So, he decides to replace his wife. He sends out a decree that all the beautiful young virgins in the kingdom be prepared for his examination. He gives them to the care of his eunuch (who can be trusted not to spoil their virginity) for a period of one year. Each of the young maidens must spend six months being soaked in oil of myrrh and six months being soaked in assorted perfumes.

After each maiden’s year is up, she is paraded in front of the king. If he decides not to accept her, she is returned back to the “harem” and given to the care of a different eunuch. So one eunuch watches over the hopefuls, and one watches over the rejections.

Xerxes rules over 127 provinces stretching “from India to Cush,” so there are quite a lot of maidens to examine. This process appears to continue from the third year of Xerxes reign through his seventh year. It would appear that for four years, only ugly maidens are allowed the marry. The rest remain in the king’s queue while he pretends to make a selection.

But the king has his eye on just one maiden: Esther. He watches daily to make sure she is getting proper treatment. The examination of all the other maidens in the kingdom appears to be only a sham, perhaps merely building his excitement for the day Esther is ready. Like four years of foreplay.

Oh, to be king.

//So David conquers the Moabites, and the king of Moab dies here. Oddly, the last thing we heard about this anonymous king before David’s vengeful slaughter, was that David was asking this king to provide protective custody for his parents! What happened to tear their alliance apart?

All we have is a sort of clue from silence. We hear no more about David’s parents. So, Rabbinic and medieval Jewish commentary blame this king for the their deaths!

I guess it makes as much sense as any other explanation for David’s change of heart.

★★★★★

The question is, where did Paul get his ideas, and exactly what does he teach regarding salvation? Is salvation conditional upon works, or is it a gift by the grace of God? A quick scan will uncover a lot more works-based verses in the Pauline writings than you might think. Perhaps there are two instances requiring salvation: the initial inbreaking of the Kingdom, fulfilling the prophecies of acceptance by faith/grace, and the final judgment, in which the prize must be earned? Does that mean God’s gift incurs an obligation, and is that obligation tied to the works of the Law? What exactly is Paul’s hangup with the Law, anyway? Sprinkle admits that the one single verse that set him on this journey is found in the Law of Moses:

Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD. –Leviticus 18:5

//Somehow, Sodom and Gomorrah developed a pretty bad reputation. Their story, as you know, is that God destroyed the city with fire from heaven because of their wickedness. Ever wonder what they did that was so bad?

I’ve written about this before, but there seems to be such a misunderstanding that I may as well provide some more context. Ezekiel tells us what Sodom and Gomorrah did that was so naughty: “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.” In other words, the city had plenty of bread, but refused to share. Indeed, it was Sodom’s inhospitable treatment of strangers which upset God, according to later Jewish writings. (No, it had nothing to do with sexual perversity.)

This seems to be Jesus’ take on the subject as well. Matthew, Mark and Luke all tell this story: Jesus sends his disciples out to preach, and says that for those who refuse to accept them, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the judgment.