Examining Lazurus and the rich man

[RND]

In another thread discussing eternal torment the discussion around Lazarus and the rich man came up as it is wont to do in these discussions. The tennis match of "it's a parable/no, it's not a parable" had started but that usually gets no where. No we must allow scripture to speak for itself.

On my blog back in July I addressed verse 18 of this parable as being vitally important to understanding this parable.

Luke 16:18

Have you ever thought much about this verse? Have you ever wondered why this verse is where it is in scripture and why Jesus uses the language here just before He goes into the second half of the Parable of the Unjust Steward?

I have and that is why I find this verse so interesting and compelling.

If we think about it this verse almost seems out of place. It really starts as the Pharisees begin to deride Jesus. v. 14. Then Jesus, after being derided, takes His turn and begins dressing down the Pharisees! Jesus chides the Pharisees right after concluding the first half of the parable of the Unjust Steward.

"You like to look good in public, but God knows your evil hearts. What this world honors is an abomination in the sight of God. Until John the Baptist began to preach, the laws of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and eager multitudes are forcing their way in. But that doesn't mean that the law has lost its force in even the smallest point. It is stronger and more permanent than heaven and earth." - v. 15-17

Then comes the "coup de gras" if you will:

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

I was always somewhat confused about this verse and why it was there in the first place frankly but especially right before the continuation of the parable with the tale of Lazarus and the rich man.

That was until it suddenly dawned on me one day that God always likens going after spiritualism, false religion and false pagan worship as adultery. Spiritual adultery. Now God had laid down some pretty specific rules as to why He didn't want the Children of Israel to go after "strange gods." His advice was for an obviously good reason - He didn't want these people corrupted with paganism. Now coupled with the parable in Luke 16 and the story of Lazarus and the rich man and then the reasons for this verse became much clearer.

Deu 24:1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house.

Even God had to unfortunately grant a "bill of divorce" to Israel and uphold the very law He gave to Israel because through their going after other gods and idols Israel became unclean. They became unclean because of the constant chasing and acceptance of paganism. Thus they were considered engaged in adultery and harlotry.

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Isa 50:1 Thus saith the LORD, Where [is] the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors [is it] to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

The books of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Isaiah are filled to the brim of all the various forms of adultery and harlotry that Israel and Judah committed against the Lord. This adultery and harlotry was a result of accepting all the false gods and false religion and the most grotesque spiritualism of the pagan cultures around her.

Jer 3:6 The LORD said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen [that] which backsliding Israel hath done? she is gone up upon every high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot.

Jer 5:19 And it shall come to pass, when ye shall say, Wherefore doeth the LORD our God all these [things] unto us? then shalt thou answer them, Like as ye have forsaken me, and served strange gods in your land, so shall ye serve strangers in a land [that is] not yours.

Eze 16:28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied.

Eze 16:31 In that thou buildest thine eminent place in the head of every way, and makest thine high place in every street; and hast not been as an harlot, in that thou scornest hire;

It is plain to me now that the reasons Jesus lays into the Pharisees the way He does and why He considers them to be adulterer. Jesus explains what happens in the case of the Pharisees adultery in recounting the tale of Lazarus and the rich man. It is because the Pharisees had accepted another teaching. In Jesus’ recounting this story of Lazarus and the rich man it is clear that He was comparing the Pharisees own understanding of what happens in the afterlife. That understanding was derived from the neighboring pagan cultures – in this case, the Greeks.

It is the Greeks that taught that man had a “dual nature†and that man was a in possession of an immortal soul. Jesus was using the Pharisees own false belief system which was borrowed from the pagans against them. At the same time He is deriding them even further.

That is why verse 18 in Luke 16 will always and forever be to me one of the most fascinating single verses in all of scripture. It is so brilliant in it’s application with regards who it was directed at and in relation to what it concludes about these false beliefs.

"But Abraham said, `If they won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even if someone rises from the dead.'"

The Pharisees had long before this time given up on seeking the higher meaning of God's character and instead were comfortable being their "own gods" if you will. This is even true of many Christian sects associated with the beliefs of 'modern' pagan Rome. Pagan protestantism has adopted so many of these same false beliefs.Thus both Rome and Protestantism are committing the same "spiritual adultery" that the Pharisees did.

Through the two great errors, the immortality of the soul and Sunday sacredness, Satan will bring the people under his deceptions. While the former lays the foundation of spiritualism, the latter creates a bond of sympathy with Rome. The Protestants of the United States will be foremost in stretching their hands across the gulf to grasp the hand of spiritualism; they will reach over the abyss to clasp hands with the Roman power; and under the influence of this threefold union, this country will follow in the steps of Rome in trampling on the rights of conscience.

As spiritualism more closely imitates the nominal Christianity of the day, it has greater power to deceive and ensnare. Satan himself is converted, after the modern order of things. He will appear in the character of an angel of light. Through the agency of spiritualism, miracles will be wrought,the sick will be healed, and many undeniable wonders will be performed. And as the spirits will profess faith in the Bible, and manifest respect for the institutions of the church, their work will be accepted as a manifestation of divine power.

The line of distinction between professed Christians and the ungodly is now hardly distinguishable. Church members love what the world loves and are ready to join with them, and Satan determines to unite them in one body and thus strengthen his cause by sweeping all into the ranks of spiritualism. Papists, who boast of miracles as a certain sign of the true church, will be readily deceived by this wonder-working power; and Protestants, having cast away the shield of truth, will also be deluded. Papists, Protestants, and worldlings will alike accept the form of godliness without the power, and they will see in this union a grand movement for the conversion of the world and the ushering in of the long-expected millennium. - Ellen White, The Great Controversy, page 588

So here's the deal. Can we begin to address the symbols of this parable for greater understanding and learn the rich depth of meaning that this parable affords us? In the other thread it's asserted that this can't be a parable but if that is the case why can we find so many parallels in the Bible regarding the many symbols employed in Luke 16:19-31? Things like: The "rich man", The table, Fairing sumptuously, The crumbs, Lazarus, The dogs, The purple and linen, The "gulf", and The "five brothers" all point to other aspects of scripture that aid our understanding of this parable.

We must be honest enough with ourselves and our ingrained belief systems that if these things mentioned don't represent anything then why are they used and employed?

 

[handy]

RND, trust me that I do mean this with respect and am not trying to trash talk your faith here...But it seems as though what is happening here is that, since the clear meaning of this rather straightforward passage so goes against what your own "ingrained belief system" teaches that you have to "over-spiritualize" to the point of it being totally convoluted and confusing.

Just how I see it.

 

[RND]

RND, trust me that I do mean this with respect and am not trying to trash talk your faith here...But it seems as though what is happening here is that, since the clear meaning of this rather straightforward passage so goes against what your own "ingrained belief system" teaches that you have to "over-spiritualize" to the point of it being totally convoluted and confusing.

Just how I see it.

Well, coming from someone that thinks Boise State should be playing for the national championship of college football based on an incredibly weak schedule then I can see where you are coming from. That said, how is it possible to "over-spiritualize" the Gospel?

The fact of the matter is Handy is that this portion of scripture is not nearly as straightforward for the common erroneous belief that it is referring to either, 1) purgatory, or 2) immortality. Was Jesus "over-spiritualized" when He compared Himself to the manna that fell in the wilderness?

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

And what is bread famous for producing? That right, Crumbs! "Over-spiritualize".

So Handy, please do not take this the wrong way because I too mean this with respect and do not seek to trash your faith in error but unless you are prepared to do a little digging in your Bible and let the Bible speak for itself please, whatever you do, don't get in the way of people that are willing to do so. You do however owe it to yourself to correct your misunderstanding to find out what these various symbols mean.

Hey, BTW have you found where "wisdom and her children" are hanging out in scripture yet? Oh, what's that, you haven't looked. Shame that is. Oh, I see "over-spiritualized".

Wanna know what the table symbolizes?

 

[handy]

Oh, you know me, Solo. I NEVER read the Bible for myself. I'm jes' a little stupid housewife and just drink in like sop whatever the Pastor tells me.

But, when I have gotten around to dusting off my bible and peeking in it, those rare times in the past 30 years, I've found that there are times when the Bible uses metaphor, there are times when the Bible speaks literally, there are times when the Bible is straight prose, there are times when the Bible is biographical, there are times when the Bible is historical, there are times when the Bible is poetical.

So, in my own dumb little way, you know in those rare times that I've even looked in the Bible, I've decided, since I'm kind of stupid, to take things that are literal, literally, things that are straight prose, as written, things that are metaphor, metaphorically, and so on. Some people call it "context", and context is one of the first things one should look for in studying the Scriptures. Then, if one still doesn't understand the meaning of something, one can also look up other Scriptures dealing with the same topic and see if the meaning seems consistent throughout. Since the story of Lazarus is written as straight prose and since there is nothing in the straight interpretation of it that conflicts with other Scriptures and since the greater context of the story was Jesus' rebuking the Pharisees for being lovers of money (who have left their love of God, hence the adultery reference), the story (whether historical or parable) stands pretty much as written.

But, what do I know. I'm just a dumb Bronco's fan. You know, the team that whenever given a chance to play a BCS team WINS!

 

[prough91]

Just because a person can take a story and turn it into a metaphor does not mean that story is a metaphor.

 

[RND]

Oh, you know me, Solo. I NEVER read the Bible for myself. I'm jes' a little stupid housewife and just drink in like sop whatever the Pastor tells me.

But, when I have gotten around to dusting off my bible and peeking in it, those rare times in the past 30 years, I've found that there are times when the Bible uses metaphor, there are times when the Bible speaks literally, there are times when the Bible is straight prose, there are times when the Bible is biographical, there are times when the Bible is historical, there are times when the Bible is poetical.

So, in my own dumb little way, you know in those rare times that I've even looked in the Bible, I've decided, since I'm kind of stupid, to take things that are literal, literally, things that are straight prose, as written, things that are metaphor, metaphorically, and so on. Some people call it "context", and context is one of the first things one should look for in studying the Scriptures. Then, if one still doesn't understand the meaning of something, one can also look up other Scriptures dealing with the same topic and see if the meaning seems consistent throughout. Since the story of Lazarus is written as straight prose and since there is nothing in the straight interpretation of it that conflicts with other Scriptures and since the greater context of the story was Jesus' rebuking the Pharisees for being lovers of money (who have left their love of God, hence the adultery reference), the story (whether historical or parable) stands pretty much as written.

But, what do I know. I'm just a dumb Bronco's fan. You know, the team that whenever given a chance to play a BCS team WINS!

Don't be so hard on yourself and just learn the parable. For example, have you ever explored what the "five brothers" represent? And, if those "five brothers" do in fact represent something can we not say, contextually, that Jesus was speaking metaphorically?

 

[RND]

Just because a person can take a story and turn it into a metaphor does not mean that story is a metaphor.

Um, OK. If there was one example in the parable I could see this being true. But over ten?

 

[prough91]

Believe what you will, brother. I doubt I'll change your mind nor you mine. Also, Handy was being sarcastic a few posts up.

 

[Drew]

RND, trust me that I do mean this with respect and am not trying to trash talk your faith here...But it seems as though what is happening here is that, since the clear meaning of this rather straightforward passage so goes against what your own "ingrained belief system" teaches that you have to "over-spiritualize" to the point of it being totally convoluted and confusing.

Just how I see it.

I have not yet RND's materail, but one thing is for sure - the Luke 16 material is not a factual account of the state of two real "dead" people. This is easy to see. Let's look at part of the account:

So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.

But Paul tells us clearly in 1 Corinthians 15 that no one gets a body until Jesus' second coming:

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

How can we believe that the Luke 16 is a true story if it characterizes people who have passed through death's door as having body parts, such as fingers and tongues.

 

[RND]

I have not yet RND's materail

Read the OP Drew.

 

[handy]

Sarcastic? Who me?

So what is the context of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man?

The main point of this entire chapter is verse 13, "No servant can serve two masters; he will either hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."

Since the Pharisees put great stock into being rich, they started scoffing at Jesus for saying this. Jesus was comparing the Pharisee's love for money (and prestige) with someone who divorces his first wife and marries another. Metaphorically speaking, Jesus is telling the Pharisees that they have left God and are married to the love of money. This is when Jesus goes into the parable or history (it really doesn't matter to me which it is) about Lazarus and the Rich Man. He is explaining the ultimate fate of those who put love of money and prestige over love of God.

So, so far, Mike, we are in agreement. And, you must admit, this is all very straightforward, not too much metaphor going on here except the clear metaphor of the lovers of money being adulterers.

However, where we disagree is when you jump into the realm of speculation and personal opinion, based again on what you described as an "ingrained belief system". I realize that Seventh Day Adventist's reject the whole idea that there might just be a literal place of torment for those who die in rebellion against God and therefore the story of Lazarus presents a real problem. But,Jesus didn't suddenly and without any explanation switch from speaking of the Pharisees love for money above love for God to their adopting a pagan idea of a dual nature. The whole point of the story of Lazarus is that it shows the ultimate fate of those who pursue money and prestige at the cost of loving God. Moses and the Prophets tell us over and over that we must not put other gods before God and make ourselves idols, which the Pharisees did with their love for money. Since the Pharisees were puffed up in their supposed "wisdom" regarding Moses and the Prophets, this was a slap in the face to those who spouted Moses and the Prophets at the folks all the time, and yet had replaced their love for God with the love of money.

Since there is no contradiction in Jesus' other teachings and discussions of a place of eternal punishment for those who do not love God, there is no reason to believe that Jesus isn't describing that place here in Luke 16. Again, I don't think it really matters if there really was a real Lazarus and a real rich man involved, or if they were characters in a story Jesus tells. It is by no means the only time Jesus refers to a place of eternal torment for those who reject God, nor does anything in the story contradict those other times Jesus refers to that place.

 

[RND]

But,Jesus didn't suddenly and without any explanation switch from speaking of the Pharisees love for money above love for God to their adopting a pagan idea of a dual nature.

Then what was the purpose of His language in verse 18? Where the Pharisees not serving two masters by accepting the Greek paganism of an anthropomorphic dual nature of man and yest insisting they were servants of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

The whole point of the story of Lazarus is that it shows the ultimate fate of those who pursue money and prestige at the cost of loving God. Moses and the Prophets tell us over and over that we must not put other gods before God and make ourselves idols, which the Pharisees did with their love for money.

And yet Jesus called them adulterers. Why?

Since the Pharisees were puffed up in their supposed "wisdom" regarding Moses and the Prophets, this was a slap in the face to those who spouted Moses and the Prophets at the folks all the time, and yet had replaced their love for God with the love of money.

Was there not a "spiritual" component to this message when Jesus pointed out to them how they had become adulterers regarding the word of God?

Since there is no contradiction in Jesus' other teachings and discussions of a place of eternal punishment for those who do not love God, there is no reason to believe that Jesus isn't describing that place here in Luke 16.

Punish"ment" or punish"ing"?

Again, I don't think it really matters if there really was a real Lazarus and a real rich man involved, or if they were characters in a story Jesus tells.

Isn't interesting how Jesus brings up the loyalty and commitment of Abraham's gentile servant in this?

It is by no means the only time Jesus refers to a place of eternal torment for those who reject God, nor does anything in the story contradict those other times Jesus refers to that place.

Handy, Jesus is using the Pharisees belief in the dual nature of man adopted from the Greeks against them! In fact, this is closer to satire than anything else.

 

[handy]

But,Jesus didn't suddenly and without any explanation switch from speaking of the Pharisees love for money above love for God to their adopting a pagan idea of a dual nature.

Then what was the purpose of His language in verse 18? Where the Pharisees not serving two masters by accepting the Greek paganism of an anthropomorphic dual nature of man and yest insisting they were servants of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

No, they were serving two masters (one really) by worshipping mammom rather than God. The entire context of the chapter has nothing to do with any Greek paganistic idea.

The whole point of the story of Lazarus is that it shows the ultimate fate of those who pursue money and prestige at the cost of loving God. Moses and the Prophets tell us over and over that we must not put other gods before God and make ourselves idols, which the Pharisees did with their love for money.

And yet Jesus called them adulterers. Why?

Because they had left their love for God for the love for money.

Since the Pharisees were puffed up in their supposed "wisdom" regarding Moses and the Prophets, this was a slap in the face to those who spouted Moses and the Prophets at the folks all the time, and yet had replaced their love for God with the love of money.

Was there not a "spiritual" component to this message when Jesus pointed out to them how they had become adulterers regarding the word of God?

Not "spiritual" as much as Jesus using a simple metaphor to get His point across.

Since there is no contradiction in Jesus' other teachings and discussions of a place of eternal punishment for those who do not love God, there is no reason to believe that Jesus isn't describing that place here in Luke 16.

Punish"ment" or punish"ing"?

A place of eternal "punishing"? That particular phrase isn't really found in Scripture. Teachings regarding a place of eternal punishment though is found in a number of places, as you well know.

Again, I don't think it really matters if there really was a real Lazarus and a real rich man involved, or if they were characters in a story Jesus tells.

Isn't interesting how Jesus brings up the loyalty and commitment of Abraham's gentile servant in this?

Who? Who is Abraham's gentile servant? Surely you're not referring to Lazarus here?

It is by no means the only time Jesus refers to a place of eternal torment for those who reject God, nor does anything in the story contradict those other times Jesus refers to that place.

Handy, Jesus is using the Pharisees belief in the dual nature of man adopted from the Greeks against them!

No. He really isn't Mike. Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees that, while they liked to spout Moses and the Prophets to the people, they had replaced any love for God with love for money. Read verse 14 once more, it clearly says, "Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things, and they were scoffing at Him."

 

[francisdesales]

I have not yet RND's materail, but one thing is for sure - the Luke 16 material is not a factual account of the state of two real "dead" people. This is easy to see. Let's look at part of the account:

So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.

But Paul tells us clearly in 1 Corinthians 15 that no one gets a body until Jesus' second coming:

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.

How can we believe that the Luke 16 is a true story if it characterizes people who have passed through death's door as having body parts, such as fingers and tongues.

Drew,

Although the account may be a "parable", there is no reason to presume that this is NOT another analogous use of "common items" to explain metaphysical realities. The purpose of Christ's parables were to explain the "unexplainable" using analogous items or relationships. "The Kingdom is like..."

The underlying meaning of the story is not to focus on whether there are actual fingers in the after life, (I agree our mode of existence will not be the same as now) but that people are "alert and awake" after death (and before the Second Coming). They are able to think and regret decisions made on earth. They are able to intercede for others. And there are boundaries that separate the evil dead and good dead... I think Revelation is pretty clear on the activity of those WE see as physically dead...They respond to actions going on earth. The story of Lazarus uses common figures to express a metaphysical reality - that men remain somehow able to continue to partake in cognizant thinking.

Jesus uses common items to explain the afterlife, but that doesn't discount the underlying meaning. The parable would be meaningless IF the rich man could not regret his decisions made on earth. It is clear that Jesus is not speaking of the Parousia, but the "right now" - and the rich man, "right now" was able to regret his wicked actions on earth. Abraham's answer did not indicate that Lazarus was unable to respond because of Lazarus' "death", but because of some metaphysical "wall" between the two "places of existence".

I use lots of quotations, because we really can't say a whole lot about the afterlife that would be technically correct, like "place" and "time" But I think analogy helps to explain such matters better, even if not all the details are technically correct....

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Where the Pharisees not serving two masters by accepting the Greek paganism of an anthropomorphic dual nature of man and yest insisting they were servants of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

I think you are confusing "pagan" with a philosophy that attempts to explain our nature that has little to do with monotheistic or polytheistic belief. Whether Jewish or Greek philosophy, there really is not much said on the subject in the Bible that clearly states that "body and soul division is false" While the Jews of the OT did not view man in this way, they also didn't view the Messiah as someone who would die on a cross...

The fact remains that man's dual nature as per Greek philosophy was commonly accepted by Jews and Christians - seeing this as God's gradual revelation given to men, and accepting it as true. The Hellenistic concept of body and soul are difficult to ignore in the New Testament...

Regards

 

[handy]

The underlying meaning of the story is not to focus on whether there are actual fingers in the after life, (I agree our mode of existence will not be the same as now) but that people are "alert and awake" after death (and before the Second Coming). They are able to think and regret decisions made on earth. They are able to intercede for others. And there are boundaries that separate the evil dead and good dead...

I agree with most of what you said, Francis. But one thing I get from the story is that the dead are not able to intercede for others. When the rich man asked to be able to intercede on behalf of his brothers, he was told no. The point is, if one is not going to listen to "Moses and the Prophets" and I believe that we can include the entire Scriptures in this, then one isn't going to respond to one interceding on their behalf.

I do agree though, that there isn't really much reason to get hung on on whether or not there were physical fingers involved. Frankly, it matters not to me whether the story is a history or a parable. I lean towards parable. However, the story shows that the place of torment is a place where those there are aware of what is happening.

 

[francisdesales]

However, where we disagree is when you jump into the realm of speculation and personal opinion, based again on what you described as an "ingrained belief system". I realize that Seventh Day Adventist's reject the whole idea that there might just be a literal place of torment for those who die in rebellion against God and therefore the story of Lazarus presents a real problem. But,Jesus didn't suddenly and without any explanation switch from speaking of the Pharisees love for money above love for God to their adopting a pagan idea of a dual nature. The whole point of the story of Lazarus is that it shows the ultimate fate of those who pursue money and prestige at the cost of loving God. Moses and the Prophets tell us over and over that we must not put other gods before God and make ourselves idols, which the Pharisees did with their love for money. Since the Pharisees were puffed up in their supposed "wisdom" regarding Moses and the Prophets, this was a slap in the face to those who spouted Moses and the Prophets at the folks all the time, and yet had replaced their love for God with the love of money.

Very good. It would be a stretch to go from "love of money" to "man is not soul and body" teaching... I don't see how the two are related, and our Lord always related parables to a teaching... Mr. RND's is a good example of eigesis.

 

[RND]

No, they were serving two masters (one really) by worshipping mammom rather than God. The entire context of the chapter has nothing to do with any Greek paganistic idea.

Why not? You've managed to give me a statement but no substance to chew on.

Because they had left their love for God for the love for money.

But leaving that not what the Bible calls adultery against God. The ancient Israelites were called harlots and adulterers for going after strange gods and pagan beliefs.

Since the Pharisees were puffed up in their supposed "wisdom" regarding Moses and the Prophets, this was a slap in the face to those who spouted Moses and the Prophets at the folks all the time, and yet had replaced their love for God with the love of money.

Was there not a "spiritual" component to this message when Jesus pointed out to them how they had become adulterers regarding the word of God?

Not "spiritual" as much as Jesus using a simple metaphor to get His point across.

So out of all of Jesus' parables there was nothing "spiritual" in this communication with the Pharisees? Really? Was there a "spiritual component" to the other parable Jesus told in Luke 15 and 16? For example was the lost coin just a lost coin or did it mean something besides just being a lost coin?

A place of eternal "punishing"? That particular phrase isn't really found in Scripture.

Exactly! So since there isn't anything regarding eternal punishing then obviously there isn't eternal punishing.

Teachings regarding a place of eternal punishment though is found in a number of places, as you well know.

Do you know the difference between punishment and punishing?

For example, a condemned criminal set for execution experiences punish"ing" when he is executed. The punish"ment" is carried out. Does the punish"ing" continue? No. Is the punish"ment" forever? Yes.

Who? Who is Abraham's gentile servant? Surely you're not referring to Lazarus here?

Yes I am. You do know that Abraham's servant was a gentile right? I'm sure you know this, right? Oh, and certainly you know what Lazarus means right?

No. He really isn't Mike.

Mike? Who's Mike?

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees that, while they liked to spout Moses and the Prophets to the people, they had replaced any love for God with love for money.

And there understanding of the afterlife with the pagan Greek thinking.

Read verse 14 once more, it clearly says, "Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things, and they were scoffing at Him."

Yea, the were covetous. That's a common theme throughout the Gospels. But that's the more obvious point of only part of the parable. Since you have no idea how Lazarus is tied to Abraham's gentile servant how can you possibly understand some of the other aspects of this parable?

For example, let's try an easy one, what do the "five brothers" represent?

 

[francisdesales]

I agree with most of what you said, Francis. But one thing I get from the story is that the dead are not able to intercede for others. When the rich man asked to be able to intercede on behalf of his brothers, he was told no.

I have given this some thought before, Handy. I understand your response. Here is what I came with in my reflections on this passage...

However, ask yourself WHY was the rich man not "able" to intercede? Was it because his "prayers" would be metaphysically an impossibility OR was it because "they wouldn't listen", the earthly man's will to remain wicked- so "why bother", as per Abraham's response...?

Thus, it is my opinion that intercessions are possible. HOWEVER, if the "recipient" of God's graces resulting from our fervent prayers are closed to grace, prayers will not be efficacious. This is true even between persons on earth. I can pray for an atheist to convert, but it is likely "they would not listen". Why? Because God, despite our prayers, does not always answer them as we would like... And man does retain free will, even when we pray for them!

In short, I believe that intercession is possible - but the soil also will determine the fruit! In the parable, Jesus seems to teach that intercession from the grave is possible... There is an abundance of Jewish literature that points to this belief, as well (I realize you may not see this as inspired, but the fact remains that it was a commonly held belief of the age - and passed to Christians, as witnessed by archeological evidence, for example...

I do agree though, that there isn't really much reason to get hung on on whether or not there were physical fingers involved. Frankly, it matters not to me whether the story is a history or a parable. I lean towards parable. However, the story shows that the place of torment is a place where those there are aware of what is happening.

We agree, it seems obvious that there is some awareness in the afterlife, including in hell. I would think the POINT of a place of punishment would require the punished person's awareness?!

Regards

 

[RND]

I think you are confusing "pagan" with a philosophy that attempts to explain our nature that has little to do with monotheistic or polytheistic belief. Whether Jewish or Greek philosophy, there really is not much said on the subject in the Bible that clearly states that "body and soul division is false"

I would disagree because I think the Torah is abundantly clear on the state of man after he dies. In referring to this parable the Christian must be prepared to argue from the Torah only because that was the only scriptures available when Jesus gave it.

While the Jews of the OT did not view man in this way, they also didn't view the Messiah as someone who would die on a cross...

That's only because they ignored the "meat and potatoes" of the Torah.

The fact remains that man's dual nature as per Greek philosophy was commonly accepted by Jews and Christians - seeing this as God's gradual revelation given to men, and accepting it as true.

Unfortunately that is true.

The Hellenistic concept of body and soul are difficult to ignore in the New Testament...

When compared with the totality of scripture however I think we can achieve the proper understanding.