Play Review – Der Kaufmann

“Der Kaufmann” is Tanghalang Pilipino’s third offering for their 27^th theater season, after the children’s musical “Sandosenang Sapatos” and the epic musical “Ibalong”. “Der Kaufmann” is an adaptation of “The Merchant of Venice” by William Shakespeare based on the Tagalog translation “Ang Negosyante ng Venecia” by National Artist Rolando Tinio and set in a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.

Shakespeare’s “Merchant of Venice” is mind-blowing in itself; but to have it translated in Tagalog? When I shared this experience to my friends, they were incredulous:  How can one translate the famous speeches in the play, like Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew eyes?” (Act 3, Scene 1) and Portia’s “The quality of mercy” (Act 3, Scene 5)? Furthermore, “Merchant” deals with themes of anti-Semitism and homophobia, and ends with legalistic maneuvering in a courtroom. Shakespeare’s play itself is tough going already, but “Der Kaufmann” dares to add the additional layers of rendering it in Tagalog and setting it in a Nazi concentration camp.

In preparing to watch and to review this play, I read a lot—perhaps the most that I had to do with any of the plays I’ve reviewed so far. I downloaded Shakespeare’s original play (courtesy of ManyBooks.Net and downloadable here) and read books on Judaism, anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust (HaShoah in Hebrew). My references are listed below at the end of the review.

I watched the play (once more ticket courtesy of my former student Lhorvie Ann—bless her heart!) last October 5. In this play she plays Jessica, the daughter of the Jewish moneylender, Shylock. Since the play had been running since September 27, I had to resist the temptation of reading other online reviews and perusing TP’s Facebook group page. (Lhorvie insisted that I watch this showing because last week it was her alternate playing the role.) It had been worth the wait.

Summary

The play is a “play within a play” where the Jews were forced by the Nazis to stage Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice". (For a summary of the story, see the version of this review in Instructional Minutes.) Culminating with the reunion of Antonio and Portia, the Jews, together with the homosexuals and the Gypsies, were gassed to death.

After the curtain call, it was announced that they will be an open forum to answer any questions that the audience may have. The director and playwright, Rody Vera, and dramaturge Giselle Garcia also joined the cast. I was seated on the upper balcony but Regina saw me when I raised my hand. I commended that cast and crew for a job well done and extended my hand in the Birkat Kohanim (Priestly Blessing) gesture and gave them a form of a Jewish blessing: “Live long and prosper!”

I taught Trixie how to make the Birkat Kohanim gesture.

Technical Notes: Stage, Lights, Sounds

The play was staged at the Bulwagang Huseng Batute, the “studio theater”. The stage is arranged in an inverted “V” shape. There is an upper level which where scenes in Belmont were usually played. The lower level is composed of sliding frames with “cyclone wire” which represents cages. There is a square open area at the center where most of the action happens. In the middle of the play, during the wedding or Portia and Bassiano, Bassiano and his friends were revealed to be Nazis. They strapped the Nazi insignia on their left arms. To complete the effect, the red banner emblazoned with that hateful symbol, the swastika, was hoisted up from the sides. Portia and the rest give the one-armed Nazi salute. (It has been said that Hitler got the idea from Mussolini.) The transformation has been completed: The set is now a concentration camp.

Huseng Batute is a smallish venue so the cast did not need to use microphones. Also, only recorded music was used. There was only one musical number: a comical piece by Launcelot announcing his intend to depart from his Jewish master.

The set gave me the creeps.

The sounds are the work of TJ Ramos and the lights were by John Batalla (who also did “Sandosenang Sapatos” and “Ibalong”) .

Acting

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

Regina de Vera gave an excellent performance as the wealthy heiress of Belmont. Previously she played the sweet older sister in “Sandosenang Sapatos” (albeit a static character). But in “Kaufmann” Regina was perfect in her haughty, upturned-nosed portrayal of Portia. One by one she deprecated her suitors, but melted like wax at the sight of Bassanio. She was also able to portray Portia’s alter-ego, the doctor of law, as a legal eagle, trapping Shylock in a web of legal technicalities. Overall, Regina gave a strong performance portraying a strong woman. There is no question “Kaufmann” is Regina’s play. Kudos, Miss de Vera!

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

The play guest-stars comedian par excellance Mr. Lou Veloso, who played Gobo, the bumbling father of Launcelot, Shylock’s friend Tubal, and the Duke of Venice. As he was presiding over the trial of Antonio, high upon the upper level and dressed in a Nazi uniform, Lou Veloso looked every inch the Füehrer. Great work, sir!

Too bad “Kaufmann” was not a musical so we were not regaled with the rich baritone of Jonathan “Tad” Tadionan (the father in “Sandosena” and Aswang in “Ibalong”), but he ably played the role of Shylock, complete with a grimace on his face and a limp in his gait. Tad is a good actor but infinitely better as a singer.

(Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

One of the surprises of the play is that Shylock is played not by one but three actors. Miss Raquel Pareño displayed great acting cred by portraying Shylock the mother. Her scenes were especially memorable: the “Hath not the Jew eyes?” speech and the scene where she was schizophrenically distressed over Jessica’s elopement while rejoicing over the loss of Antonio’s ships. Another memorable scene is when she rushed over to the fallen Shylock the father during the trial and delivered some of Shylock’s lines.

I also found it too bad that my favorite child stage actress, Trixie Esteban, only had a few lines in the play. (“Pahinga nga po ako ngayon eh,” she chirped as we talked after the play.) She played Shylock the daughter, who delivered the final lines assigned to Shylock in the play. While we were not treated to her sweet singing voice, her clear, innocent voice seems to hang in the air as she delivered her lament.

The comedic foils were also very effective in the play (“Merchant” is a comedy, after all): Kristofer Kliatchko as the Prince of Morocco, Aldo Vencilao as Launcelot and the Prince of Aragon.

Antonio and Bassanio. (Photo courtesy of Tanghalang Pilipino)

Hands down the most controversial roles went to Marco Viaña as Antonio and Ricardo Magno as Bassanio, friends and lovers in the play.

Theological Reflections

Anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is hatred towards the Jewish people (who descended from Shem, son of Noah). The Jews here were not depicted as “Christ-killers” but as usurious moneylenders. The Catholic Church used to forbid its members from engaging in moneylending. But the Jews follow Deuteronomy 28:20-21:

Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals [food], interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Jewish Publication Society, 1917)

--which means Jews may lend money without interest to fellow Jews (“thy brother”) but may charge interest to non-Jews, i.e., “foreigners”. Hence that there is a conspiracy theory that Jews are “international bankers” and that they control the international banks, the press, etc.

In my observation, Jews are perceived in this country either as fairies or Christ-killers. A lot of Filipinos thought that Jews only existed in the Bible. A lot of people I talked to were surprised when I told them that there is actually a Jewish synagogue in Makati. (A Jewish doctor I talked to related a story of a nun who told him, “I’ve never met a Jew before!” He then pointed to Jesus on a Cross and said, “He’s Jewish.”)

But the more sinister perception is that Filipinos (and a lot of other misinformed people) think that the Jews are Christ-killers. One member from one of my former church assignments described the ugly features of “Jews” who are whipping Jesus in a tableau that Catholics parade around during Holy Week. I would like to point out that while Jesus was indeed condemned by Jewish religious leaders (the Sanhedrin), the execution was authorized by a Roman governor and carried out by Roman soldiers!  If one asks who is guilty of killing Jesus, both Jews and Gentiles (non-Jews) are guilty! But it doesn’t matter: Jesus died for the forgiven of everyone’s sins, Jew or Gentile (Romans 1:16)!

Let me highlight a little-known chapter in Philippine history. In the story, Shylock is forced to convert to Christianity. For centuries European Jews had been forced to convert to Christianity but they still secretly observed Jewish religious customs. One little-known part of Philippine history is that these so-called nuevos cristianos (‘New Christians’) or Marranos (secret Jews) fled here to the Philippines to be able to escape persecution from in Spain and to be able to practice their religion freely. In World War II, President Manuel L. Quezon granted sanctuary to the Jews escaping the Holocaust in Europe. After the War, most of these Jews immigrated to the US or made aliyah to Israel. The remaining Jews compose the Jewish community in the Philippines. Most of us Filipinos are unaware that the Philippines was responsible for saving the lives about 1,200 Jews from the horrors of the Holocaust!

Homosexuality and homophobia. One of the questions posed by the audience is the homosexual relationship of Antonio and Bassanio (“My Husband’s Lover,” as many in the audience commented, referring to a local television program where a husband has an affair with another man.) According to the all-knowing Wikipedia, the homosexual angle between Antonio and Bassanio has been long a topic of scholarly debate. The play also pointed out that the Nazis not only committed genocide against the Jews but they also mass murdered homosexuals.

The issue on homosexuality is currently a hot issue of debate even within religious circles. I don’t wish to write at length on this topic now. Suffice it to say that I wholeheartedly subscribe to the official position of my denomination, The United Methodist Church as stated in the Social Principles:

Homosexual persons no less than heterosexual persons are individuals of sacred worth. All persons need the ministry and guidance of the church in their struggles for human fulfillment, as well as the spiritual and emotional care of a fellowship that enables reconciling relationships with God, with others, and with self. The United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching. We affirm that God's grace is available to all, and we will seek to live together in Christian community. We implore families and churches not to reject or condemn lesbian and gay members and friends. We commit ourselves to be in ministry for and with all persons.

As people of “sacred worth” “no less than heterosexual people”, homophobia has no place in the Church. However, the Church is currently against the ordination of “self-avowed” homosexuals and forbids its pastors to conduct same-sex marriages and the use of our churches for such ceremonies. I do not see the end of the homosexuality debate anywhere in sight. Suffice it for me to say for now that I believe that the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin; and that such people, just like all of us common sinners, need the ministry of the Church. Jesus died on the Cross for them as much as he died for us “ordinary” sinners.

Excursus: Feminism. Perhaps what is not much discussed is the portrayal of Portia as a powerful woman. She is shown as a woman in charge; even if the choice for her husband is left to a game of chance. When the news of Antonio’s trouble reached Belmont, it was Portia who give Antonio the money—double of the amount owed—to Bassanio. Then, disguised as a man, she managed to outmaneuver Shylock in an example of courtroom cunning—the sort of judicial jujitsu that would make any defense lawyer proud. I have always wondered: How did Portia become so well versed in law?

For me, the play would have ended at the trial of Antonio where Shylock was defeated. I’m wondering why it had to end with the Portia tricking her husband. Bassanio, grateful for the help of the doctor of law but Portia instead asks for his ring. Likewise, Nerissa, disguised as the doctor of law’s secretary, asks for his husband Gratiano’s ring. In Belmont, Portia and Nerissa confronted their husbands for losing their rings and accuse them of lying and infidelity, only to reveal that the rings were in their possession all along. Is it just female nature to put men to the test? (If you have any insights on this, please drop a comment below!)

Personal Notes

After the play, we had a “meet and greet” and picture-taking with the cast in the cramped lobby just outside Batute. I wanted to have my picture taken with Regina de Vera and Mr. Lou Veloso, but alas, too much competition for me. Even my student Lhorvie had her share of attention for a “daring” scene as Jessica. (I could not bring myself to write about it!)

Lhorvie Ann, I (wearing an amice-tallit) and Trixie.

Trixie had already gone back in but Lhorvie went to fetch her for me. I presented her a gift: since she was playing the role of a little Jewish girl I gave her mezuzah, a Jewish scroll case. “Totoo po iyan?” she said, eyes wide in amazement. Of course, I told her; and showed her the one I was wearing on a chain. I showed her the symbols on the mezuzah:  the Star of David (which she was wearing on her chest), the letter shin and the tablets of the Ten Commandments.  I also asked if it’s ok to pray for her so Lhorvie, Trixie, and I prayed right there at the lobby.

R E F E R E N C E S

“Der Kaufmann” (playbill). (2013). Philippines: Tanghalang Pilipino/Cultural Center of the Philippines.

Einstein S. J. & Kukoff, L. (1983). Introduction to Judaism: A course outline. New York: United American Hebrew Congregations. An excellent textbook on Judaism; includes the topics of anti-Semitism, the Holocaust, and Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day.

Harlow, J. (ed.) (1989). Siddur Sim Shalom. New York: The Rabbinical Assembly, The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism. A Jewish prayer book “for Shabbat, festivals, and weekdays”; includes readings for Yom HaShoah from accounts of Holocaust victims.

Michener, J. A. (1965). The source. New York: Fawcett Crest. A fictional novel on the history of the Jewish people through “the wonders of archeology” (Einstein & Kukoff, 1983). I perused the section on the same time period “Merchant” is set, where the Jews were shown as unscrupulous moneylenders and ultimately as international bankers.

Shakespeare, William. “The Merchant of Venice” (Craig, Oxford edition) (e-book). Illinois: Project Gutenberg. (Downloaded from ManyBooks.Net).

Wouk, H. (1978). War and remembrance. New York: Pocket Books. A grand World War II novel, it depicts life in the concentration camps and the systematic execution of the Jews. Made into a television miniseries.

---------. (2000). The will to live on: This is our heritage.. New York: HarperCollins. A non-fiction book, from the author of the novel War and Remembrance; it is an update on of the non-fictional This is our God.

Is it possible to receive Communion online?

 (Image from the United Methodist News Service [UMNS] on Facebook.)

As this entry is being written, leaders from across The United Methodist Church (UMC) are meeting to discuss the possibly of Online Communion. Bishops, pastors, theologians, and other leaders are in Nashville, Tennessee in a meeting sponsored by the General Board of Higher Education and Ministry (GBHEM), the General Board of Discipleship (GBOD), and United Methodist Communications.

Perhaps from near the beginning of the advent of the Worldwide Web, churches and other ministries have started setting up webpages, publishing sermons online (through text, audio, video, live streaming, etc.) and doing other forms of online ministry. The Internet has also spawned “online churches” where participants “gather” wherever they are on the globe, in front of their computer monitors. Typically these Internet churches concentrate on the preaching and the teaching of the Word. Could it be that the next evolution of online ministry will involve administering the Sacraments over the Net?

I have never experienced “going to church” over the Internet. I remember in the 90’s when I visited an amateur-looking "Internet church" website where the liturgy is printed in full: hymns, responses, Scripture, homily, etc. To my surprise, the liturgy included the rite of Holy Communion! If I remember correctly, it involves reading the Eucharistic Prayer (which has been said…er, typed, by a priest) and then partaking of the elements by yourself.

I have also never participated in online Communion. But from what I’ve read so far, it seems to involve you having a piece of bread and a cup of grape wine (or juice), watching a pastor prays the Great Thanksgiving (I guess through live streaming;). As the minister invokes the power of the Holy Spirit in the epiclesis, he/she not only consecrates the elements immediately present with him/her, but also “zaps” yours as well, making your bread and wine “valid” elements for Holy Communion.

Ostensibly, the idea of online Communion is being supported by those who for one reason or another cannot come to church regularly. The Rev. Gregory S. Neal, who offers communion online, says that his ministry is for those who use it as a supplement to receiving the Sacrament from the local church.

But from the very beginning, the Church has extended Communion to those who are not able to receive it at the local church: those who are sick or homebound. The Articles of Religion of the UMC (ArticleXVIII) specifically forbids the Sacrament to be “reserved, carried about, and worshiped”. This refers to the Roman Catholic practice of “reserving” some of the hosts consecrated at the Mass for the veneration of the faithful. Instead, the UMC practices extension, where consecrated elements pastors (or trained laypersons) delivered to those who are not able to go to church.

The 2008 General Conference passed an amendment to a paragraph in The Book of Discipline (¶1117.9) which provides for the consecration of “nonperishable” elements in places where the distribution of the elements is “affected distance and time constraints”. The Judicial Council (in Decision 1109) overturned this amendment because this “creates a doctrine of the ‘reserved sacrament’” for the Church—something which forbidden by the above-mentioned Article of Religion.

It has been argued that online Communion is valid because the local church is also part of the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church”. If the local church is part of the “invisible” Body of Christ, thus Christians may partake of Communion wherever they are. But this mystical Body of Christ (by this I mean the Church), has its tangible expression as a visible congregation of believers.  

Let me put it this way: A person cannot claim to be a member of the universal Church without membership to a local church. In the same way a person cannot be claim to be a member of the UMC is general without first being a member of a local UM congregation. Thus, the universal Church is not an abstract thought; it is a mystical reality which is manifested through the local congregations.

If we offer online Communion, would this mean we ought to offer online Baptism as well? This would mean that the pastor pronounces the baptismal formula (“Name, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”) online; then you will administer the water to yourself: either by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. Wouldn’t “online Sacraments” make communal acts into private, individual activities? Would not these be more contradictory to the idea of the universal Church than being agreeable to it? (By the way, we wouldn’t be the first to offer online ordination.)

The UMC has always celebrated Holy Communion in the context of the local congregation. Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20). It is entirely appropriate: the local church is gathered around the Real Presence of Christ as seen in the Holy Eucharist. (The UMC believes that Holy Communion is NOT a mere “symbol” or “memorial”, but as the Real Presence of Christ himself—This Holy Mystery, p. 38.)

Instead of having online Communion, our local churches should make it accessible to the people: by having it celebrated every Sunday and bringing it to the sick and the homebound—on the same day. Or better yet, have pastors celebrate Communion in homes and in hospitals when visiting the sick and the elderly.

Real Presence is better that virtual presence.

* * *

At present, United Methodist congregations in my locality do NOT offer Communion every Sunday. This is in spite of the teachings of our founder, the Rev. John Wesley (for example, in his sermon The Duty of Constant Communion, which the Book of Discipline says is part of the official doctrine of the Church!) and of the denomination itself (as contained in the official teaching document This Holy Mystery, which is approved by the General Conference!). And I cannot understand the hardheartedness and the close-mindedness of some people I talk to on the idea of constant Communion. 

I used to celebrate Communion every Sunday in my last local church appointment, a small church in the boondocks. The church had its high and lows (mostly lows) but I think it would have disintegrated had it not for the grace imparted by the Sacrament. But since this year I opted not to have a church appointment, so now I attend a local church. So now, I receive Communion only once a month, as per custom (and not by biblical mandate or Church law).

I miss having Communion every Sunday.

Perhaps having online Communion would not be so bad after all.

Maybe it’s better than heading to nearest Catholic church.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19^th Sunday after Pentecost (Ordinary Time/UM Kingdomtide), Year C

September 29, 2013

Luke 16:19-31

Introduction

In my World Literature class, we are now discussing The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri. The Comedia tells of Dante’s adventures through Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso—Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise. It is said to be an allegory of the Christian soul to God. In Inferno, the soul discovers the true nature of sin as it witnesses how the various sins are punished in Hell. (For example, in the Third Circle of Hell, the gluttonous are punished by being made to lie down in “a vile slush” that is constantly added to by a “foul icy rain”.) In Purgatorio, the soul is “purified” from the root causes of sin. (In the First Terrace, souls are purged from Pride are forced to walk around bent with a huge weight on their backs, making them see examples of Humility on the floor). Finally, in Paradiso, the soul ascends to the very presence of God himself.

The Divine Comedy presents the view of the Roman Catholic Church—and of the world—during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. For example, Paradiso presents a geocentric view of the universe where the Earth is in the center of the Solar System, and not the Sun.

Discussion of The Divine Comedy is provoking a lot of questions in class. While Philippine Christian University is a Protestant school, a majority of the students are Roman Catholic. There are discussions between the differences in beliefs between Roman Catholics and Protestants. For example, Roman Catholics believe in Limbo (the First Circle of Hell in Inferno) and Purgatory; meanwhile many Protestants believe that when a person dies, his/her soul goes directly to Heaven or Hell.

The final authority for Christians, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, is the Holy Scriptures. It seems providential that we are discussing The Divine Comedy when the Gospel for Sunday is the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). What does Jesus say about life after death?

Excursus: Is the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus a parable? There are those who say that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is only a parable. And if it is only a parable, then it's not literally true. Parables are not just stories with a moral lesson, like fables for example. A parable is a figure of speech, therefore with symbolic meaning. For example, Jesus often introduces parables with “The kingdom of heaven is like…” (Matthew 13).

John Wesley argues that the story is history, not parable.

But is the subsequent account merely a parable, or a real history? It has been believed by many, and roundly asserted, to be a mere parable, because of one or two circumstances therein, which are not easy to be accounted for. In particular, it is hard to conceive, how a person in hell could hold conversation with one in paradise. But, admitting we cannot account for this, will it overbalance an express assertion of our Lord: “There was,” says our Lord, “a certain rich man.” — Was there not? Did such a man never exist? “And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus.”--Was there, or was there not? Is it not bold enough, positively to deny what our blessed Lord positively affirms? Therefore, we cannot reasonably doubt, but the whole narration, with all its circumstances, is exactly true. And Theophylact (one of the ancient commentators on the Scriptures) observes upon the text, that, “according to the tradition of the Jews, Lazarus lived at Jerusalem.” (Sermon 112, The Rich Man and Lazarus)

The “parable” is unique because of all the parables Jesus makes use of a historical person, i.e., Abraham. And if we follow John Wesley’s argument, Lazarus himself (not the one he resurrected, John 11) was a historical person!

I. A picture of life (Luke 16:19-21)

There are two pictures of life: the picture of luxury and the picture of poverty. The rich man “was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.”  This reveals that the rich man was very successful in business so he can afford to live in luxury. Meanwhile, there is also a beggar “who was laid at the gate” and had nothing to eat: “and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” He even has nothing to bind his skin ulcers: only “the dogs came and licked his sores”.

It should be pointed out here that there is nothing evil in being rich and there is nothing virtuous in being poor per se. But John Wesley warns,

And it is no more sinful to be rich than to be poor. But it is dangerous beyond expression. Therefore, I remind all of you that are of this number, that have the conveniences of life, and something over that ye walk upon slippery ground. Ye continually tread on snares and deaths. Ye are every moment on the verge of hell! “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for you to enter in the kingdom of heaven.” (Sermon 112)

II. A picture of death (Luke 16:22)

The great equalizer been the rich and the poor and the wicked and the virtuous is death. Mark Twain famously said that no one can escape death and taxes. But while there are many who have managed to cheat with their taxes, no one can ever escape death.

The beggar died “and was carried by angels into Abraham’s bosom”. We are told how his body was disposed: He might have been eaten by the dogs (for example, Queen Jezebel, cf. I Kings 21:23-24; II Kings 9:30-37). The rich man also died; doubtless with pomp and buried in rich man’s tomb: “Doubtless with pomp enough, though we do not read of his lying in state; that stupid, senseless pageantry, that shocking insult on a poor, putrefying carcass, was reserved for our enlightened age!” (Notes on Luke XVI:22).

III. A picture of life after death (Luke 16:23-31)

A. Abraham’s bosom and Hades (v. 23). What is Abraham’s bosom? It is a name that the Jews give to Paradise. Talmud says mentions a certain rabbi now “sitting in Abraham’s bosom”:

"Rabbi [Judah] saith to Levi, Represent the Persians to me by some similitude. He saith, They are like to the host of the house of David. Represent to me the Iberians. They are like to the angels of destruction. Represent to me the Ismaelites. They are like the devils of the stinking pit. Represent to me the disciples of the wise, that are in Babylon. they are like to ministering angels. When R. [Judah] died, he said, Hoemnia is in Babylon, and consists of Ammonites wholly. Mesgaria is in Babylon, and wholly consists of spurious people. Birkah is in Babylon, where two men interchange their wives. Birtha Sataia is in Babylon, and at this day they depart from God. Acra of Agma is in Babylon. Ada Bar Ahava is there. This day he sits in Abraham's bosom. This day is Rabh Judah born in Babylon. (Kiddushin 72b, emphasis supplied)

Abraham’s bosom is not the same as Heaven. John Wesley refutes the idea that after death, souls immediately go to heaven:

So the Jews commonly termed what our blessed Lord styles paradise; the place “where the wicked cease from troubling, and where the weary are at rest;” the receptacle of holy souls, from death to the resurrection. It is, indeed, very generally supposed, that the souls of good men, as soon as they are discharged from the body, go directly to heaven; but this opinion has not the least foundation in the oracles of God: On the contrary, our Lord says to Mary, after the resurrection, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father” in heaven. But he had been in paradise, according to his promise to the penitent thief: “This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Hence, it is plain, that paradise is not heaven. It is indeed (if we may be allowed the expression) the antechamber of heaven, where the souls of the righteous remain till, after the general judgment, they are received into glory. (Sermon 112)

 Therefore, Abraham’s bosom or Paradise, is merely an “ante-room” to Heaven.

Meanwhile, the rich man went to Hell (Hades in the original Greek). Hades is not Purgatory, a place for the “purging” of sins before the soul can finally enter Heaven (as in Purgatorio in The Divine Comedy). John Wesley says that there are those who believe that the souls that are in torment “in order…to atone for the sins committed while in the body, as well as to purify the soul from all its inherent sin.” He makes a comparison the Roman idea of the “purging” of sin after death as mentioned in the Aeneid by Virgil: 

“Ev’n when those bodies are to death resign’d,

Some old inherent spots are left behind;

A sullying tincture of corporeal stains

Deep in the substance of the soul remains.

Thus are her splendours dimm’d, and crusted o’er

With those dark vices that she knew before.

For this the souls a various penance pay,

To purge the taint of former crimes away.

Some in the sweeping breezes are refined,

And hung on high to whiten in the wind:

Some cleanse their stains beneath the gushing streams,

And some rise glorious from the searching flames.”

 --Here souls are “purified” wind, water, and flame. But Wesley says, “Tormented, observe, not purified. Vain hope, that fire can purify a spirit! As well might you expect water to cleanse the soul, as fire. God forbid that you or I should make the trial!” (Sermon 112).

B. Comfort and torment (vv. 23- 25). Some believe that after death, the soul will “sleep” in the dust, citing verses like I Thessalonians 4:13 where the expression “fallen asleep” is used as a euphemism for death. Our souls will not be unconscious after death. In our text, Abraham says, that Lazarus is now being comforted while the rich man is now being tormented (v. 25)—the exact opposite of what they had in life!

We are not told in the text what Lazarus is now experiencing. But other parts of the Bible portray the place of the righteous as a banquet with the patriarchs of the Jewish Scriptures: “And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8:11).

But what the rich man is going through is describe in detail: He can see Abraham and Lazarus “afar off” and he can feel the torment of the flames, so much that he wanted Abraham to send Lazarus “to dip the tip of his finger in water” and cool his tongue because he is being tormented in flame.

Death is not an escape from punishment, but it is punishment not just for a time, but for eternity!

C. The great gulf (vv. 26-31).

1. Some people believe that there is still a chance for people to go to Paradise after death. But Abraham told the rich man that his request is impossible because “there is a great gulph [Wesley’s spelling] fixed” so that no one from either side can cross over to another (v. 26). In the doctrine of Purgatory, souls are being “purged” from sin before they can enter Paradise. But if there is a place of purification of sin, it’s in this life, not in the afterlife! (In The Divine Comedy, Purgatory is portrayed as a mountain on Earth.) The Bible says,

We then, as fellow-labourers, do also exhort you, not to receive the grace of God in vain, (For he saith, O have heard thee in an acceptable time, and in a day of salvation have I succoured thee. Behold, now is the acceptable time; now is the day of salvation.) (2 Corinthians 6:1-2).

2. Some people also believe that it is possible for spirits to return from the dead. Having been denied his request of Lazarus crossing over to give him a drop of water, the rich man now pleads to Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his five brothers who are still living. Doubtless that his brothers are also living in the same way that he did, and the rich man knows that they are also headed for the place of torment. But once more, Abraham denies his request. The living, he says, already have the Bible (called the books of “Moses and the prophets” here) with them. If they do not listen to the Word of God, neither they will listen even to someone who comes back from the dead (vv. 29-31).

Conclusion

In life, there are those of us who live with the good things in life; while there are those of us who live with the evil things in life. Our condition is life is only temporary, because one day death shall come to each and every one of us. In death, some of us who lived in with the good things in life will tormented, and some of those who lived with the evil things in life will be comforted. Once we die, our destiny is fixed. No amount of prayer can save us once we are put in torment. The time to change our final destination is not after we die but now, while we are still living.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him, may not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)