FATHER ABRAHAM
But there is one further argument
which we may draw from the internal evidence of the passage itself,
taken with other statements in the Gospel narrative. The Jews laid great
stress on the fact that they were �Abraham's seed� (John 8:33). They
said, �Abraham is our Father,� whereupon the Lord answers that, though
they might be Abraham's seed according to the flesh, yet they were not
Abraham's true seed, inasmuch as they did not the works of Abraham (vv.
39, 40).
Early in the Gospels this fallacy was dealt with judicially, when John
said by the Holy Spirit: �Think not to say within yourselves, We have
Abraham to our father� (Matthew 3:9). This was when He saw many of the
Pharisees and Sadducees come to His baptism; and called them �a
generation of vipers,� and not the sons of Abraham. They thought and
believed that inasmuch as they were the sons of Abraham by natural
generation, they were entitled to all the blessings and privileges which
were given to Abraham and his seed. So here, one of them is represented
as saying, �Father Abraham.� Three times he calls him �father,� as
though to lay claim to these blessings and privileges (vv. 24, 27, 30).
And the point of the Lord's teaching is this, that the first time
Abraham speaks, he is made to acknowledge the natural relationship -
�Son,� he says (v. 25). But he repudiates the Pharisee's title to any
spiritual favor on that account. He does not use the word �Son� again.
Abraham is represented as repudiating the Pharisee's claim to anything
beyond natural relationship. He may be related to him according to the
flesh, but there is no closer relationship, though the Pharisee
continues to claim it. So the Lord does not make Abraham repeat the word
�son� again; though the rich man twice more calls Abraham �Father.�
This understanding of the passage is,
therefore, in strictest harmony with the whole of the immediate context,
and with all other Scriptures which bear upon this subject. It was quite
unnecessary for the Lord to stop to explain for us the sense in which He
used this tradition, because it was so contrary to all the other direct
statements of Scripture, that no one ought for a moment to be in doubt
as to what is the scope of the Lord's teaching here. No previous
knowledge of Pharisaic traditions is necessary for the gathering of this
scope. But as this is the conflict between tradition and Scripture, the
evidence from the Talmud comes in, and may well be used to strengthen
our interpretation.
No! the Lord was at the crisis of His condemnation of the Pharisees for
their false traditions which made the Word of God of none effect, and He
makes use of those very teachings, adapting them to the great end of
condemning them out of their own mouth.
See also The Rich Man and Lazarus by
Otis Sellers <Back
to the Beginning