The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 16

The Gospel of Luke, Chapter 16 - 10-05-2012

Two weeks ago, following the presentation of Luke chapter 15, I had given an outline of the reasons for the translation of Luke chapter 16 verses 8 and 9 as they appear in the Christogenea New Testament. Here we will summarize the explanation of the Parable of the Unrighteous Steward once more, and begin by reading the verses in question: “8 And the master praised the unrighteous steward because he did wisely, because the sons of this age are wiser than the sons of light are towards their own race. 9 And I say to you, shall you make for yourselves friends from the riches of unrighteousness, that when you should fail they may receive you into eternal dwellings?”

In summary, in verse 8 of the chapter there are two Greek words which practically all, if not all, of the popular translations of Luke fail to render properly. These are αἰών, which here is rendered as age, and γενεά, which is rendered as race. The Greek word αἰών is the word from which we have the English eon. It represents a period of time, and not of space. Therefore it cannot be properly translated as world the way in which we generally understand the word world as it is used today.

1 Then He also said to the students: “There was a certain wealthy man who had a steward, and he had suspected him of squandering his possessions. 2 And calling him he said to him ‘What is this I hear about you? Give me an account of your stewardship, for you are no longer able to be steward.’ 3 And the steward said to himself ‘What shall I do, that my master has taken the stewardship from me? I am not able to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4 I know what I shall do, in order that when I have been removed from the stewardship they shall receive me into their houses!’ 5 And calling on each one of those indebted to his master, he said to the first ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6 And he said ‘A hundred baths of olive oil.’ So he said to him ‘Take your records, and quickly sitting down write fifty.’

A βάτος (943), according to Liddel & Scott, is the Hebrew “bath” (see Strong’s #1324), and equivalent to the Attic μετρητής (3355, John 2:6) and about 9 English gallons. The Codex Bezae (D) has κάδος here, which is also equivalent to a μετρητής. The difference is representative of the many which are found in that codex and which were obviously meant to accommodate a different dialect. Liddel & Scott equate all of these, the βάτος, the μετρητής, and the κάδος, to the ἀμφορεύς, which is also “nearly 9 gallons”.

7 Next he said to another ‘And how much do you owe?’ And he said ‘A hundred kors of grain.’ He says to him ‘Take your records and write eighty.’

The κόρος (2884), “kors” here in the plural, is a Hellenization of the Hebrew cor (for which see Strong’s Hebrew #3734). Liddell and Scott state that it is “a dry measure containing 10 Attic medimni, about 120 gallons”.

8 And the master praised the unrighteous steward because he did wisely,

The word φρόνιμος (5429), here as the Adverb wisely, may have been rendered sensibly or prudently. The word “wiser” appearing later in the verse is translated from another form of the same word.

because the sons of this age are wiser than the sons of light are towards their own race.

The sons of this age, τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου. The word αἰῶνος is the Genitive singular of αἰών (165). The word is “a period of existence...an age, generation...a long space of time, an age...a definite space of time, an era, epoch, age, period...” (Liddell & Scott). It is the source of our English word eon, and usually in the New Testament it infers a long period of time, and therefore it may be presumed to be equivalent to the span of many generations, as we use that term today. If αἰών indeed infers such a long space of time here, then the word γενεά which appears later in the sentence must be rendered race, since many generations - as we use the term today - would be required to span this age. Yet if αἰών infers a shorter duration, a single generation or an era, then γενεά still must be rendered “race”, lest the use of the word is redundant and it becomes meaningless. The translators of the King James Version must have realized this predicament, and here (as they did elsewhere) they rendered αἰών as world, a meaning that the word certainly does not have as we use the term world today! An αἰών can only refer to a period of time, not to an object of space.

The word rendered towards, εἰς (1519), is a preposition used only with the Accusative case (as τὴν γενεὰν is which follows), and is properly “into, and then to” and also among other things “...at...with...to or towards...in regard to...for” (Liddell & Scott), and in certain contexts it may sometimes be rendered “in”, but is not commonly “in”. Liddell & Scott give one example, where in English we would say “to look in the face”, rather than the literal “at” or “towards” the face. The Greek phrase “in their generation” as the King James Version has εἰς τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν here would be properly expressed with ἐν (1722) and the Dative case, and not with εἰς and the Accusative, as it is found here.

γενεά (1074), “race, stock, family” (Liddell & Scott), is race here and not, as it may be in some contexts, “I...2. a race, generation” or “II...2. age, time of life” (Liddell & Scott) or as we say: generation . Even when the word γενεά appears in contexts in which it refers to a people who live all at the same time, it does not lose it connotation of race. This is evident without resorting to any other Biblical references, but from the full statement here alone. τὴν γενεὰν τὴν ἑαυτῶν (“their own race”), or literally “the race that is of themselves”, the Articles (τὴν) and γενεὰν are all in the Accusative case, and so they are the object of the preposition εἰς. While the Article τὴν is the Accusative singular, the pronoun ἑαυτῶν (literally “of themselves”, but their own in the context here) is Genitive plural (ἑαυτοῦ, 1438) and “reflects back to the subject” (MacDonald, Greek Enchiridion, p. 104), and so here τὴν γενεὰν belongs to one party only, the “sons of this age”, who are the subject of the clause. Therefore we have another reason why the word γενεὰν must be rendered as race, and not as generation, since the sons of both “this age” and “light” are obviously contemporaneous and therefore they share the same period of time. So the “sons of this age” are a race distinct from the “sons of light”, as the Greek grammar insists.

The “sons of this age” and the “sons of light” are surely two separate races which are being referred to by Christ here. Therefore it must be inferred that this is a reference to those races which have vied with each other throughout the age, just as Gen. 3:15 forebode that they would. That this struggle is extant at the time of Christ is fully manifest elsewhere in Luke's gospel, such as Luke chapter 10 where certain people were likened to serpents and scorpions and associated with Satan's fall from heaven, or in Luke chapter 11 where it is made evident that those who disputed with Christ were of the descendants of Cain, since only Cain could be held responsible of the blood of Abel, Cain representing the seed of the serpent of Genesis 3:15. It is also manifest elsewhere in the New Testament, such as at Matthew chapter 13, John chapter 8, Romans chapter 9, 1 John chapter 3, or Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 where we see that certain Judaeans are not truly Judaeans, but are of the assembly of the adversary. Even the account of Judas Iscariot, the Canaanite, while he was chosen by Christ for a specific purpose, is illustrative of this parable. For according to the gospel of the apostle John (12:6) he held the bag which the money belonging to the disciples was kept. Judas, in other words, had somehow become the steward of what worldly riches had belonged to the group of disciples. And as John says, he was also a thief and a dissembler.

Once it is realized that this parable is comparing two races of people, called the sons of this age and the sons of light, and once these two groups are identified in the context of Scripture and traced down through history, then the startling profundity of the parable becomes manifest. For the Kenite, Canaanite, Edomite Jews have been the world's stewards, lawyers, bankers and treasurers all through time and wherever they have traveled. Allowing one Jew into a position of power causes a flood of Jews into such positions in little time. European history is a story of the struggle between Christian Society and the constant attempts by the Jews to usurp it. With the advent of Liberalism, the Jew seems to have prevailed. Whether one look at England in 1695, or in America in 1913, once the Jew becomes the steward of a nation's wealth, the pattern is the same. First the Jew, the dishonest steward, corrupts the offices and policies of the land, primarily through usury. Then there is a turn to imperialism – using the host to subject other nations. Then there is a large transfer of wealth and knowledge from the host nation to the subjected nations. While this is a simplification, it is precisely what has happened in recent centuries with the Jew as steward of the Western economies. The Jewish stock investors financed imperialism and colonialism, and then under the lead of the Jewish stock investors all of the former colonial so-called victims were enriched and empowered at the expense of the former colonizers.

England, a supposed victor in the last two world wars, lost its entire empire and was driven to destitution by the treachery of the international bankers in the aftermath of those wars. The United States, the foremost manufacturing and military power for most of the twentieth century, has now lost nearly its entire manufacturing base, for no reason other than the treachery of those same international bankers. The dishonest stewards, being given control of the economies of Christendom, have in turn enriched all of the enemies of Christendom. Christians have not learned these lessons, because even their Bibles are badly translated and poorly understood.

9 And I say to you, shall you make for yourselves friends from the riches of unrighteousness, that when you should fail they may receive you into eternal dwellings?

The word σκηνή (4633), a “dwelling” here, is “a covered place, a tent...a camp...generally, a dwelling-place, house, temple...” (Liddell & Scott). One other rendering evoking Old Testament language of the King James Version would be “tabernacle”.

The word riches, which is μαμωνᾶς (3126) in the Greek in verses 9, 11 and 13, is mammon in the King James Version. Liddell & Scott state that Μαμμωνᾶς, or Μαμωνᾶς, was “a Syrian deity, god of riches; hence riches, wealth, N.T.” Yet translating this verse, the differences with the King James Version are much greater than this.

Luke 16:9 is very naturally read as a question, which neither the King James Version nor the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27) nor any other of the versions which I’ve seen read in such a manner. Rather, many commentators use this verse as a statement, to justify the wicked methods of the dishonest steward, which amount to stealing! So much drivel has been written concerning this verse, because its being a rhetorical question has been overlooked by so many. The construction of the verbs here very naturally makes for a rhetorical question, where a verb of the Indicative mood is followed by a verb of the Subjunctive mood. The Greek verb ποιήσατε, the Future Indicative of ποιέω (4160), is “shall you make...?” in the Christogenea New Testament. Later in the sentence the verb ἐκλίπῃ, the Aorist Subjunctive of ἐκλείπω (1587) is “when you should fail” preceded by ὅταν (when) and may have been written “when you might fail” and the verb δέξωνται is the Aorist Subjunctive of δέχομαι (1209), here followed by ὑμᾶς (“you”) and being in the 3rd person plural, “they may receive you”, or “they might receive you”. A similar pattern is found at Galatians 6:5, which the Christogenea New Testament also read as a rhetorical question. The Indicative Mood, as ποιήσατε is here, is often used in interrogation (MacDonald, Greek Enchiridion, p. 43), and even without an interrogatory particle, and such is often done by Luke (and recognized by both the King James Version and by the NA27), where there are many examples both in his Gospel at 4:34; 7:19 and 20; 9:54; 12:51; 13:2, 4, and 15; 14:3; 20:4; 22:48; and 23:3; and in Acts 5:28; 16:37; 21:37; 23:3 and 4; 25:9; and 26:27.

Biblical evidence that in context this interpretation is the correct one, meaning that Luke 16:9 is indeed a rhetorical question, is quite plain. First, the commandment states that “thou shalt not steal”, and Christ is certainly not endorsing embezzlement here in this parable. Second, certainly the friends of the unrighteous steward cannot receive him into any “eternal dwelling”, for only Yahweh can do such a thing as that. Third, v. 13 plainly states that one cannot serve both Yahweh and riches simultaneously. So the obvious answer to the rhetorical question is a resounding “No!” The real lesson here is that the unrighteous steward, evidently one of the “sons of this age” (v. 8), acted as those of his race are expected to act: craftily, because they have no reward hereafter. The possibility that the sons of light can mimic the sons of this age is reflected in the warning of Christ given in this parable. The sons of light, the true Adamic Israelites, should not do as the others, although they clearly have the capacity to do so. The Israelite’s eternal dwelling is with Yahweh, and there is none other. He should store his treasure there (Matt. 6:19-21; Mark 10:21; Luke 12:16-21 and 31-34), since worldly riches, or mammon, mean nothing (i.e. Heb. 11:26).

10 “He who is faithful with little is also faithful with much, and he who is unrighteous with little is also unrighteous with much. 11 Therefore if you have not been faithful with the unrighteous riches, who shall entrust to you the true?

If you do not seek to do the will of God with that which you have gained in this world, how could you expect to be rewarded in the kingdom to come?

12 And if with that of another you have not been faithful, who will give to you that which is your own?

The earth is Yahweh's and the fullness of it – therefore even what you have now is not really your own.

Deuteronomy chapter 8: “16 Who fed thee in the wilderness with manna, which thy fathers knew not, that he might humble thee, and that he might prove thee, to do thee good at thy latter end; 17 And thou say in thine heart, My power and the might of mine hand hath gotten me this wealth. 18 But thou shalt remember the LORD thy God: for it is he that giveth thee power to get wealth, that he may establish his covenant which he sware unto thy fathers, as it is this day. 19 And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish. 20 As the nations which the LORD destroyeth before your face, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient unto the voice of the LORD your God.”

13 No one servant is able to serve two masters. For either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will endure the one and despise the other. You are not able to serve Yahweh and riches!”

There are still other things to be learned from this parable, concerning one’s desire for wealth as opposed to one’s need to serve Yahweh, but this important racial message must be considered first. If White men were truly concerned with their brethren, we could never be in the trouble which we are in today! While the mostly Jewish international bankers have been able to transfer all of our real wealth to aliens, we have aided them in doing so, out of our own individual greed. One cannot love his brother, yet hire a Mexican to do labor, saving a few dollars an hour while putting his brother out of work. One cannot love his brother, yet shop at a Korean-owned grocery store rather than a White-owned store, to save ten or twenty cents on grocery items. One cannot love his brother, and buy an appliance made in China, rather than one made in Minnesota, because it is a few dollars cheaper. One’s desire to save a few dollars would put all of his brethren out of work! Our care for riches has, therefore, precluded our ability to serve Yahweh by loving our brethren (John 13:34-35; 1 John 2:7-11; 3:11-17). And this is precisely what has been happening in the White nations for the past hundred years! Our care for riches and the desire to save a few dollars – or to buy more material goods for the money we have – has enriched the Mexicans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Arabs, the Turks, all of those who truly hate us, and especially the Jews! The Jews, of course, have orchestrated and have taken full advantage of this situation, and thus is our predicament. Notice that the global trade system is described as “Mystery Babylon” in the Revelation, fully evident as it is described at Revelation chapter 18. This system is doomed to fail, as it is written. Shall White men recognize it, and those behind it, when it does fail? Pray that they shall! 1 John 2:9 says: “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.” To support the alien is equivalent to hating one’s brother!

Psalm 49: “6 They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; 7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: 8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:) 9 That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption. ”

14 And hearing all these things the Pharisees being lovers of money then scorned Him. 15 And He said to them “You are justifying yourselves before men, but Yahweh knows the things of your hearts. For that which is being exalted among men is an abomination before Yahweh.

1 Timothy 6:10: “For the love of money is a root of all evil, of which some striving for have been led astray from the faith and have pierced themselves with many sufferings.”

16 “The law and the prophets were until Iohannes. From then the Kingdom of Yahweh is proclaimed and all force their way into it. 17 It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of the law to fail. 18 Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and she being divorced from a man commits adultery marrying.

Many commentators seem to suppose that this verse is unconnected to those which precede, some editions even placing it in a paragraph by itself as the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece does. In actuality, Christ was not a rambling speaker, changing the topic on a whim and not being able to maintain a train of thought. The text here is actually intimately connected with the statements which precede. Neither is Christ giving a strictly moral lesson here, concerned with mundane marital relationships. Rather, His mention of divorce is connected in every way to the Parable of the Unrighteous Steward, and to those forcing their way into the Kingdom of Heaven.

As we have already discussed, a great percentage of Judaeans at the time of Christ were not Israelites, but were actually Edomites or other Canaanites converted to Judaism after their absorption into the political nation. Historical and Biblical evidence of this fact abounds, for which see Josephus’ Antiquities 13.9.1 (13:254-258); John 8:33-44; Romans 9:1-13; Strabo 16.2.34, etc. The priesthood and the various sects of priests were certainly also mixed, and the historical evidence of such is found in Josephus’ Antiquities 20.10 (20:224-251), and by noting Josephus’ statement at Wars 2.8.2 (2:119-121) contrasting the Essenes, whom he calls “Judaeans by birth”, to the other sects all of whom ostensibly were not true Judaeans, or Judahites. There is also Eusebius’ remarks in his history of the church, at Book 1 Chapter 6. Once it is evident that Christ is addressing a mixed audience, the meaning of His statement at 16:16 here is quite clear, for the kingdom of heaven is open only to the children of Israel, i.e. Matt. 15:24; Rev. 19:6-10 and 21:9-12. The Edomites and Canaanites and other aliens are among “all [that] force their way into it”.

Yet this has implications for today even greater than in the time of Christ. In another conversation, recorded in Matthew chapter 11, Christ spoke of this same topic where He said: “12 And from the days of Iohannes the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens suffers violence, and the violent ones plunder it!” This is exactly parallel to the Parable of the Unrighteous Steward given at the beginning of this 16^th chapter of Luke. Today, under the stewardship of the international Jews, we see that the violent ones have indeed plundered Christendom, and they have also very craftily created an environment whereby “all force their way into it.” So the versions of the warning recorded at both Matthew 11 and here in Luke 16 are perfectly and literally true. If Christianity and the Kingdom of Heaven were for all men, there would be no concern with anyone forcing their way into it. Rather, Christianity is exclusive to the children of Israel for whom the New Covenant and redemption under the law were promised, and therefore there is such concern.

The law of divorce was not part of the Levitical law, although it is given at Deuteronomy 24:1-4. There is one other law concerning marriage given to the priests that was not given to the people in Deuteronomy, and that is the requirement that a man's wife be a virgin. While divorce and remarriage were permitted under the law, it was not by the Sovereign will of Yahweh, which itself is better reflected in Leviticus and here and elsewhere in the New Testament. Therefore Christ explains, as found in Matthew Chapter 19: “7 They [the Pharisees] say to Him: 'Then why had Moses instructed to give a letter for a bill of divorce and to put her away?' 8 He says to them: 'Because Moses for the hardness of your hearts had permitted you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it had not been thusly. 9 Now I say to you that he who should divorce his wife – not for fornication – and should marry another commits adultery!'” There is the Sovereign will of Yahweh, and there is the permissive will of Yahweh. The law in Deuteronomy reflects His permissive will, but the priests are held to a higher standard.

In the segment of this Luke presentation prior to this one, we presented all of the Scriptural evidence that Yahweh, married to Israel (the nation) and having divorced Israel, by His own Word commits adultery if He remarries, unless of course He remarries only Israel – and not any one of other nations – but only the same ancient Israelites whom He divorced. The New Covenant is a matter of prophecy, for instance at Jeremiah 31:31 and Ezekiel 34:25, spoken only concerning the houses (families) of Israel and Judah. Paul, in Romans chapter 7 where he discusses husband-wife relations, divorce and remarriage, is actually teaching the same thing which Yahshua had taught here. The children of Israel committed adultery and then they were put away, or divorced, by Yahweh their Husband. However Yahweh's Divine will does not permit Him another wife. In the meantime, Israel is liable to death under the law for having committed adultery. But in Jeremiah 31 Yahweh promises that there will be a new covenant between Himself and Israel, and that Israel will not die, but will always be a nation. The only way in which Yahweh could keep all of these promises is to die Himself, freeing Israel from the law of the Husband, which would permit Yahweh to have Israel once again while maintaining the letter of the law. This is an amazing story, and it is what Paul is explaining in Romans chapter 7. While men sin, and many men divorce and remarry on one or more occasions, Yahweh will not sin, and He will not break His law and His Divine will concerning marriage and divorce.

Romans 7:1-6: “1 Are you ignorant, brethren (I speak to those who know the law,) that the law lords over the man for as long a time as he should live? 2 For a woman married to a living husband is bound by law; but if the husband should die, she is discharged from the law of the husband: 3 so then as the husband is living, she would be labeled an adulteress if she were found with another man; but if the husband should die, she is free from the law, she is not an adulteress being found with another man. 4 Consequently, my brethren, you also are put to death in the law through the body of Christ; for you to be found with another, who from the dead was raised in order that we should bear fruit for Yahweh. 5 Indeed when we were in the flesh, the occurrences of fault, which were through the law, operated in our members for the bearing of fruit for death; 6 but now we are discharged from the law, being put to death in that which we were held, so that we are bound in newness of Spirit, and not oldness of letter.”

Of course, Paul's allegory here is not concerned with the concept of divorce, and it does not matter who Israel was found with in her divorced state. Israel was liable to judgement under the law because she played the harlot while still married, for which reason she was put out of the house of the Husband.

19 “Now there was a certain wealthy man, and he was clothed in purple and linen, enjoying himself splendidly each day.

The Codex Bezae (D) prefaces this verse: “And He also spoke another parable...”

The third century papyrus labeled P75 names the wealthy man, having “a certain wealthy man named Neuas...”

20 And there was a certain poor man named Lazaros cast before his gates having sores, 21 and desiring to be fed from those things which fall from the table of the rich man, yet even the dogs coming licked his sores.

The word for sores in verse 20 is a participle from a verb, ἕλκω, which means to drag. Some may assert that it infers that the sores had to have been caused by dragging, however the word was used widely of sores of no particular sort. A slightly different form of the same word appears in Revelation 16:11 where it is also sores. In verse 21 the word for sores is from the related noun, ἕλκος.

22 Then it happened that the poor man died and he was taken up by the messengers into the bosom of Abraham. Then the wealthy man also died and was buried. 23 And in Hades lifting his eyes, being in trials, he saw Abraham from afar, and Lazaros in his bosom.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is just that, a parable. There are some who claim that it is not a parable, and that it should be taken literally, because it is - so they say – the only parable where an individual character is given a name. Some go so far as to claim that this was the Lazarus whom Yahshua raised from the dead, even though the circumstances of the parable are not similar to those of the man Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mariam, as the accounts concerning him relate. The one exception does not prove a rule contrived by men, and it is plausible that a character in a parable may have a name. The scribes of the Codex Bezae, as noted at verse 19, also accepted this story as a parable.

24 And calling out he said ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazaros in order that he may dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I travail in this fire!’ 25 But Abraham said ‘Child, you must remember that you received your good things during your life, yet Lazaros likewise evil things. And now here he shall be consoled, but you shall travail. 26 And besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, by which those wishing to pass across from here to you are not able, neither from there to us may they cross.’

The circumstances of the parable, on its surface, seem to support the conclusion that the Catholic version of hell, where the souls of the deceased suffer forever in some literal fire, is a reality. It is not. In Isaiah 66:24 we see this, speaking of the children of Israel: “ And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” Christ quotes this passage in Isaiah in Mark 9:48, in relationship to the fires of Gehenna.

However here Christ is making an allegory, as He (being Yahweh in the flesh) also made at Isaiah 66:24 and which He later quotes as recorded at Mark 9:48. He is using language that pre-crucifixion Christians could understand from Scripture. The allegory is of substance before the cross of Christ, where the souls of the dead were interred in Sheol, the Greek Hades, which is somewhat evident in Scripture in 1 Samuel chapter 28 and in 1 Peter chapter 3. Yet in 1 Peter chapter 3 we also learn that the prisoners – those who sinned before the cross of Christ and even before the Flood of Noah – were freed upon hearing the gospel. Paul informs us in 1 Corinthians chapter 3 that the spirit of man survives the judgment of fire, whether that man merits a reward or not, for all Israel shall indeed be saved.

There is nothing which indicates that the rich man in the parable is not an Israelite. For Yahweh chastises His sons, but not bastards (Hebrews 12:8). Many Israelites at the time of Christ did not accept Him, as Peter explains in Acts chapter 2 and which is evident elsewhere. It is much more likely that, as is evident from Scripture (see, for instance, the Transfiguration on the Mount), some Israelites went to Yahweh after their bodies died, and the preponderance spent their time in Hades until the Cross, and that the rich man was one of those.

27 And he said ‘Then I ask you, father, that you may send him to the house of my father, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may testify to them that they may not also come to this place of trial. 29 But Abraham said ‘They have Moses and the prophets. They must hear them!’ 30 Then he said ‘No! Father Abraham! But if one would go to them from the dead, they shall repent!’ 31 But he said to him: ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither would they be persuaded should one be resurrected from the dead!’”

This language proves that this account is a parable, since first, the historical Lazarus had no such commission and second, Christ is making an allegory concerning His Own mission, since it is He whom Moses and the Prophets had written about, rather than Lazarus. Even Christ, raised from the dead, would not be heard if one cannot hear Moses and the Prophets. The parable and its allegories were relevant to Hebrews in the first century, since they would have understood its context. Today it is not so relevant, since Christians must understand that of all the Judaeans who were able to be converted, those who were truly Israelites, most certainly were, or they died, in the opening centuries of the Christian era. The Jews of today, while some of them are perhaps partially descended from Judaeans, may claim to have Moses and the Prophets, but certainly do not and can not hear them.