Lucas 16
Bob Utley · Citado em PreceptAustin
Lucas 16
Utley points out why they were likely scoffing at Jesus' teaching of possessions/money - The Pharisees heard and understood His teachings about money, but rejected them in light of their traditional understanding of money as a sign of divine blessing (cf. Deut. 28+). Warren
Lucas 16
Utley - God knows your hearts” We must remember that God knows the motives of the human heart, which determine the appropriateness or inappropriateness of every action (cf. 1 Sam. 2:7; 16:7; 1 Kgs. 8:39; 1 Chr. 28:9; 2 Chr. 6:30; Ps. 7:9; 44:21; 139:1–4; Prov. 15:11; 21:2; Jer. 11:20; 17:9–10; 20:12; Luke 16:15; Acts 1:24; 15:8; Rom. 8:27). Bock explains the Pharisees "seek to justify themselves in the eyes of men. But God knows their hearts. It is what God thinks that counts. Accountability before the divine is more important than the world's opinion." (Luke) (Bolding added)
Lucas 16
Utley - Here is the surprising role reversal theme again. The Pharisees were thought of as the best of the best, but God judges by a different standard (cf. Matt. 5:20, 48). God Himself is the standard and all fall short (cf. Ro. 3:23). Salvation must be a grace gift because fallen humanity cannot obtain it by merit (cf. Gal. 3). God provided a way through His Messiah; all are welcomed through Him, but they would not come! Bob Utley on detestable - In the Septuagint this term (in its various forms) relates to (1) idolatry (idol and its worship) (2) eschatological event or person (Daniel 9:27, 11:31, 12:11) Here it is an idiom of that which pulls fallen humanity away from YHWH. It is worldliness versus spirituality. It is the priority of the immediate versus the eternal. It is humans’ desire for independence from God.
Lucas 16
Utley - This must be understood in the light of the context, as one example of the Jewish leaders trying to circumvent the obvious purpose of the Mosaic Law (cf. vv. 16–17 and the passage in Deut. 24:1–4), with the interpretations of their Talmudic, rabbinical traditions (Hillel, very liberal and Shammai, very conservative). Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible on everyone who divorces his wife - The Matthean parallels (Mt 5:32; Mt 19:9) include an exception clause (“except for sexual immorality”) that both Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18 lack. Are these texts therefore in conflict? Luke’s remark here is brief and offered as an example of how the Kingdom’s coming in Jesus does not mean a shift in ethical commitments. Luke gave the basic principle rather than the full teaching (Arndt 1956, 362). Stated most simply, the principle says, “do not divorce.” Divorce violates the three-way covenant between God, the husband, and the wife. Jesus’ words in Luke are put in absolute terms: divorce leads to adultery because it is presupposed that a person seeks a divorce because they have decided they want to marry someone else, in which case the remarriage itself is an act of unfaithfulness to the original vows (Marshall 1978, 631). Matthew more comprehensively treated divorce and remarriage, and in doing so mentioned that divorce is allowed in cases of porneia, which could be unfaithfulness during betrothal, an inter-family marriage that voids the first marriage (Lev 18:6-19; Lev 20:11-21; Dt 27:20; Ezek 22:10; CD 4.20-5.10), or, far more likely, any kind of sexual immorality (BAGD 693; BAA 1389). The implication of the exception clause seems to be that, if divorce is granted because of adultery, the faithful partner is free to remarry. Paul, who knew Jesus’ teaching, added that desertion by an unbeliever also permitted a divorce (1 Cor 7:10-16). (SeeThe Gospels and Acts) And he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery - Jesus is essentially reiterates the same principle He had just stated. First He states that the man who divorces his wife and remarries commits adultery, and here He says so does the man who marries a divorcee. Herod Antipas (to whom Jesus may have been indirectly alluding) had divorced the daughter of Aretas and married the divorcee Herodias, so he was guilty on both counts. As Cole emphasizes "Jesus is not here giving the full biblical teaching on divorce. Rather, He is showing His authority by confronting the Pharisees with an area where they often dodged God’s Law through their loopholes, while proclaiming their faithfulness to it. He is saying that by playing loose with God’s standard for marriage, they were committing adultery. Even though they could justify themselves before men, claiming that they were under the letter of the Mosaic Law, what they were doing was detestable in the eyes of God." Scoffing or Submitting?
Lucas 16
Utley - The account of Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 is the fifth parable in a series (Luke 15-16) David Thompson says it is a "story" and says "He is obviously known in eternity, but the truth is we don’t know his name. He must have been a real amazing man in his time, but we don’t know his name." The implication is that Thompson sees it as a true story and not a parable. John Trapp is similar to Thompson - (RICH MAN) Not once named, as Lazarus was, though never so little esteemed of men. God knew him by name, as he did Moses; when the rich man’s name is written in the earth, rots above ground, is left for a reproach. Keep in mind the Pharisees "were lovers of money" and they held the false belief that a rich Jew would go to Heaven, so Jesus tells them this story to "rock their world!" Andrus says "Jesus’ point is to underscore the link between money and spirituality. He indicated that man must love God and use money instead of using God and loving money. But because of His teaching the Pharisees ridiculed him." The doctrine of eternal punishment, though unpopular and frightening, is said to be part of the confession of every branch of the historic Christian church. However in re-reading the ancient Christian Creeds, I was surprised to discover that the Apostle's Creed (the "Creed of Creeds") does not actually have the word "hell" but has one line which says of Christ "He descended to the dead." The Nicene Creed (325 AD) has "He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." There is nothing in the Nicene Creed about where the "quick and the dead" go after judgment! The Symbol of Chalcedon, from 451 A.D. has nothing about judgment to come or Hell. The Athanasian Creed (450-600 AD) has an interesting section on judgment declaring that Christ "suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire." KJV Commentary - There are numerous arguments for this account being a real history. (1) Parables are hypothetical illustrations and never name specific individuals. Here not only Lazarus is named, but also Abraham (vss. Lk 16:22-25, Lk 16:29-30) and Moses (vs. Lk 16:31). (2) Jesus said “there was a certain rich man.” Harry