Hades is Sheol

[Guest]

oops i didn't know, well how do you explain the fictional part if it wasn't pharisee teaching. now i'm confused again.

The "fictional part" is allegorical, using literal events to draw out allegorical truths, with each person and event and detail representing the true message behind the teaching.

Fair enough, so what is fiction and what's real in this parable, long story short. Why would Jesus teach fictional things about heaven and hell if the teachings didn't come from any false gods. ugh..

 

[P31Woman]

"The important thing is that............. the teaching behind it remains the same............. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.​

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html#ixzz2Pd1ScDrp"​

Those who desire to move beyond the story being historical or a parable will come up with all sorts of differant meanings. ​

Hi P31,

Let me ask you a question. How does that fit into the context of what is taking place between chapters 14-16?

Hi Butch

I believe Jesus left the Pharisess home in Luke 14:25. I have no reason to believe those three chapters occured during the one meal or at the Pharisees home who hosted the meal.

Scripture does not give me reason to think it was a huge feast or anything like that.

14:1
One Sabbath, when He went to eat at the house of one of the leading Pharisees, they were watching Him closely.

15 When one of those who reclined at the table with Him heard these things, he said to Him, “The one who will eat bread in the kingdom of God is blessed!”
--------- Jesus taught them....


I believe this next part occured after the meal possibly when Jesus was leaving the man's home

25 Now great crowds were traveling with Him. So He turned and said to them:

I think this goes in line with what we see in chapter 15

15:1
All the tax collectors and sinners were approaching to listen to Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes were complaining, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them!”

BTW, if you notice neither Jesus or Luke call the accounts in Chapter 16 parables. Like I said before it's really wrong for us to get hung up on if these are literal or parables because the spiritural truths remain the same. We have no reason to say these are allegories.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I believe this next part occured after the meal possibly when Jesus was leaving the man's home

25 Now great crowds were traveling with Him. So He turned and said to them:

I think this goes in line with what we see in chapter 15

15:1
All the tax collectors and sinners were approaching to listen to Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes were complaining, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them!”

The interpretation still stands because of the presence of the Scribes, you have to understand that throughout the gospel of Luke Jesus has several encounters with the Scribes and they're all about challenging Jesus' teaching or Jesus' authority to teach.

Luke. Luke’s Gospel portrays the scribes as teachers of the law and legal experts. In specific instances, Luke also seemed to equate the term νομοδιδάσκαλος (nomodidaskalos) (Luke 5:17, 21) and νομικός (nomikos) (Luke 11:37–54) as equivalent for γραμματεύς (grammateus).
Like the Gospel of Mark, Luke portrays the scribes together with either the Pharisees or chief priests and elders questioning the authority of Jesus. The scribes together with the Pharisees asked why Jesus was eating with the tax collectors and sinners (Luke 5:27–32; 15:1–2). Together with the chief priests and elders, they also questioned Jesus’ authority to teach (20:1–2). As teachers of the law, the scribes also questioned Jesus’ right to forgive sins (5:17–21). One time, however, the scribes did acknowledge Jesus’ expertise in the law (20:39).
Luke likewise shows the scribes as part of the leadership responsible for Jesus’ death. The scribes looked for opportunities to see Jesus break the law in order to accuse Him (Luke 6:6–11), and they were portrayed as plotting with the chief priests against Jesus after His temple demonstration (Luke 19:47–48). The scribes were also a part of the Jewish council who interrogated Jesus (Luke 22:66). Luke also links the scribes to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus (Luke 9:22) and shows the scribes and chief priests accusing Jesus in front of Herod (Luke 23:10).
Similar to Mark, Luke also portrayed Jesus as denouncing the scribes who liked to display their clothes, be praised in public, exploit widows, and show off their piety (Luke 20:45–47). In addition, Luke also depicts Jesus as condemning the lawyers for increasing the burden of the people and hindering their knowledge while being hypocrites (Luke 11:37–54). Jesus openly provokes the scribes and Pharisees by healing on the Sabbath (Luke 6:6–11).

TanGatue, P. (2012). Scribe. In J. D. Barry & L. Wentz (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary (J. D. Barry & L. Wentz, Ed.). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.​

BTW, if you notice neither Jesus or Luke call the accounts in Chapter 16 parables. Like I said before it's really wrong for us to get hung up on if these are literal or parables because the spiritural truths remain the same. We have no reason to say these are allegories.

In the context of Luke 15-16 he only calls one of the Parables a Parable and that is the Parable of the Lost Sheep in v.3. Notice however how he begins the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the Parable of the Dishonest Manager and the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.

A certain man had two sons.
Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς. (Luke 15:11 - The beginning of the passage on the Parable of the Prodigal Son)

A certain man was rich, who had a manager.
Ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν πλούσιος ὃς εἶχεν οἰκονόμον,(Luke 16:1 - The beginning of the passage on the Parable of the Dishonest Manager).

Now a certain man was rich,
Ἄνθρωπος δέ τις ἦν πλούσιος, (Luke 16:19 - The beginning of the passage on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus)

Notice the continuation of this same phrase Ἄνθρωπος τις or certain man that consistently begins each of these 3 passages. The first two are obviously parables, yet the last passage on the Rich man and Lazarus people doubt.. this cannot be exegetically argued in my opinion, as the structure of Jesus parables in Luke. Please note the other parables that also begin in kind.

A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who both stripped him and beat him. (Lk 10:30).

Note that this is the beginning of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

And he told a parable to them, saying, “The land of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. (Lk 12:16).

This parable of the Rich Fool in Luke 12 expcitly begins with Luke notifying the reader it's a parable but of course follows the normal method of beginning with an ambiguous man who usually represents in some sense either Jesus himself, such as the Good Samaritan, or someone from the crowd he is rebuking. In this instance that would be the man from the crowd who asks Jesus to tell his brother to divide his inheritance with him in v.13

And he told this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. (Lk 13:6).

The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree further supports my thesis. The Parable found in Luke 14:16 also supports my position.

Now it is possible for you to object that this is a phrase that Luke enjoys using even in his narrative, however every single use of this phrase by Jesus comes at the beginning of a Parable. Indeed, in the instance of Jesus teaching on the Rich man and Lazarus it would be the ONLY instance where Jesus used this phrase and wasn't speaking in a parable.

Simply put, it is a near impossible position to reason that this isn't a parable. About the only leg for someone holding this position to stand on is that the poor man is given a name and this would be a unique parable that Jesus gave. Indeed this is a unique passage in general, and if one simply looks into the significance of the word and the imagery used it's easy to dismiss this argument.

 

[P31Woman]

BTW, if you notice neither Jesus or Luke call the accounts in Chapter 16
parables. Like I said before it's really wrong for us to get hung up on if these
are literal or parables because the spiritural truths remain the same. We have
no reason to say these are allegories.

I stand by what I said because it's the truth. :shocked!

Sometimes people in their efforts to strain the gnat end up swallowing the camel.

 

[P31Woman]

I believe this next part occured after the meal possibly when Jesus was leaving the man's home

25 Now great crowds were traveling with Him. So He turned and said to them:

I think this goes in line with what we see in chapter 15

15:1
All the tax collectors and sinners were approaching to listen to Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes were complaining, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them!”

The interpretation still stands because of the presence of the Scribes, you have to understand that throughout the gospel of Luke Jesus has several encounters with the Scribes and they're all about challenging Jesus' teaching or Jesus' authority to teach.

Luke. Luke’s Gospel portrays the scribes as teachers of the law and legal experts. In specific instances, Luke also seemed to equate the term νομοδιδάσκαλος (nomodidaskalos) (Luke 5:17, 21) and νομικός (nomikos) (Luke 11:37–54) as equivalent for γραμματεύς (grammateus).
Like the Gospel of Mark, Luke portrays the scribes together with either the Pharisees or chief priests and elders questioning the authority of Jesus. The scribes together with the Pharisees asked why Jesus was eating with the tax collectors and sinners (Luke 5:27–32; 15:1–2). Together with the chief priests and elders, they also questioned Jesus’ authority to teach (20:1–2). As teachers of the law, the scribes also questioned Jesus’ right to forgive sins (5:17–21). One time, however, the scribes did acknowledge Jesus’ expertise in the law (20:39).
Luke likewise shows the scribes as part of the leadership responsible for Jesus’ death. The scribes looked for opportunities to see Jesus break the law in order to accuse Him (Luke 6:6–11), and they were portrayed as plotting with the chief priests against Jesus after His temple demonstration (Luke 19:47–48). The scribes were also a part of the Jewish council who interrogated Jesus (Luke 22:66). Luke also links the scribes to the arrest and crucifixion of Jesus (Luke 9:22) and shows the scribes and chief priests accusing Jesus in front of Herod (Luke 23:10).
Similar to Mark, Luke also portrayed Jesus as denouncing the scribes who liked to display their clothes, be praised in public, exploit widows, and show off their piety (Luke 20:45–47). In addition, Luke also depicts Jesus as condemning the lawyers for increasing the burden of the people and hindering their knowledge while being hypocrites (Luke 11:37–54). Jesus openly provokes the scribes and Pharisees by healing on the Sabbath (Luke 6:6–11).

TanGatue, P. (2012). Scribe. In J. D. Barry & L. Wentz (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary (J. D. Barry & L. Wentz, Ed.). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
​

BTW, if you notice neither Jesus or Luke call the accounts in Chapter 16 parables. Like I said before it's really wrong for us to get hung up on if these are literal or parables because the spiritural truths remain the same. We have no reason to say these are allegories.

In the context of Luke 15-16 he only calls one of the Parables a Parable and that is the Parable of the Lost Sheep in v.3. Notice however how he begins the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the Parable of the Dishonest Manager and the Parable of the Rich man and Lazarus.

A certain man had two sons.
Ἄνθρωπός τις εἶχεν δύο υἱούς. (Luke 15:11 - The beginning of the passage on the Parable of the Prodigal Son)

A certain man was rich, who had a manager.
Ἄνθρωπός τις ἦν πλούσιος ὃς εἶχεν οἰκονόμον,(Luke 16:1 - The beginning of the passage on the Parable of the Dishonest Manager).

Now a certain man was rich,
Ἄνθρωπος δέ τις ἦν πλούσιος, (Luke 16:19 - The beginning of the passage on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus)

Notice the continuation of this same phrase Ἄνθρωπος τις or certain man that consistently begins each of these 3 passages. The first two are obviously parables, yet the last passage on the Rich man and Lazarus people doubt.. this cannot be exegetically argued in my opinion, as the structure of Jesus parables in Luke. Please note the other parables that also begin in kind.

A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who both stripped him and beat him. (Lk 10:30).

Note that this is the beginning of the parable of the Good Samaritan.

And he told a parable to them, saying, “The land of a certain rich man yielded an abundant harvest. (Lk 12:16).

This parable of the Rich Fool in Luke 12 expcitly begins with Luke notifying the reader it's a parable but of course follows the normal method of beginning with an ambiguous man who usually represents in some sense either Jesus himself, such as the Good Samaritan, or someone from the crowd he is rebuking. In this instance that would be the man from the crowd who asks Jesus to tell his brother to divide his inheritance with him in v.13

And he told this parable: “A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard, and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. (Lk 13:6).

The Parable of the Barren Fig Tree further supports my thesis. The Parable found in Luke 14:16 also supports my position.

Now it is possible for you to object that this is a phrase that Luke enjoys using even in his narrative, however every single use of this phrase by Jesus comes at the beginning of a Parable. Indeed, in the instance of Jesus teaching on the Rich man and Lazarus it would be the ONLY instance where Jesus used this phrase and wasn't speaking in a parable.

Simply put, it is a near impossible position to reason that this isn't a parable. About the only leg for someone holding this position to stand on is that the poor man is given a name and this would be a unique parable that Jesus gave. Indeed this is a unique passage in general, and if one simply looks into the significance of the word and the imagery used it's easy to dismiss this argument.

About time you admit you were wrong about Luke 14-16 being the same event.

I reject your personal interpetation of the passage in question.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

About time you admit you were wrong about Luke 14-16 being the same event.

Hey are you interested in discussing Scripture or being right and then shoving it in people's faces? I took the time to draw observations from all over Luke to demonstrate that this is in fact a parable, and you ignore that. Is discussing with you going to be a fruitful use of my time or should I simply stop replying?

 

[Guest]

So what is fiction and what's real in this parable of Luke 16, long story short. Why would Jesus teach fictional things about heaven and hell if the teachings didn't come from any false gods. Wasn't the heaven and hell vision in Luke 16 from the pharisees teachings? It makes sense right? Jesus was exposing false teaching in that particular area of the parable. Am I wrong?

 

[P31Woman]

About time you admit you were wrong about Luke 14-16 being the same event.

Hey are you interested in discussing Scripture or being right and then shoving it in people's faces? I took the time to draw observations from all over Luke to demonstrate that this is in fact a parable, and you ignore that. Is discussing with you going to be a fruitful use of my time or should I simply stop replying?

You never did admit you were wrong. That was my nice way of calling you out on that FACT.


To be honest with you. Your personal interpetation is of no interest to me. Personal interpetations are a dime a dozen. I find when people desire to go well beyond what is written they are playing with fire and often end up searching out liberal scholars who encourage them to continue on that path. Take this as a sincere warning from someone who has seen this happen many times in the past.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

To be honest with you. Your personal interpetation is of no interest to me. Personal interpetations are a dime a dozen. I find when people desire to go well beyond what is written they are playing with fire and often end up searching out liberal scholars who encourage them to continue on that path. Take this as a sincere warning from someone who has seen this happen many times in the past.

Just like YOUR personal interpretation, but all interpretations must be weighed against what Scripture says, and we must come to the most consistent interpretation with the passage.

Please tell me where I am going "well beyond" what is written... Actually don't.. we're done here..

 

[P31Woman]

So what is fiction and what's real in this parable of Luke 16, long story short. Why would Jesus teach fictional things about heaven and hell if the teachings didn't come from any false gods. Wasn't the heaven and hell vision in Luke 16 from the pharisees teachings? It makes sense right? Jesus was exposing false teaching in that particular area of the parable. Am I wrong?

Urk,

As far as we know the story is very much real. We simply don't know for sure. Scripture is not clear. But the good news is that it does not matter because Jesus is teaching us the truth and we can trust Him.

 

[Guest]

So what is fiction and what's real in this parable of Luke 16, long story short. Why would Jesus teach fictional things about heaven and hell if the teachings didn't come from any false gods. Wasn't the heaven and hell vision in Luke 16 from the pharisees teachings? It makes sense right? Jesus was exposing false teaching in that particular area of the parable. Am I wrong?

Urk,

As far as we know the story is very much real. We simply don't know for sure. Scripture is not clear. But the good news is that it does not matter because Jesus is teaching us the truth and we can trust Him.

Blessings P31. - urk :nod

 

[Butch5]

"The important thing is that............. the teaching behind it remains the same............. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied. In Luke 16:19-31, whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth.​

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-16-19-31-parable.html#ixzz2Pd1ScDrp"​

Those who desire to move beyond the story being historical or a parable will come up with all sorts of differant meanings. ​

Hi P31,

Let me ask you a question. How does that fit into the context of what is taking place between chapters 14-16?

Hi Butch

I believe Jesus left the Pharisess home in Luke 14:25. I have no reason to believe those three chapters occured during the one meal or at the Pharisees home who hosted the meal.

Scripture does not give me reason to think it was a huge feast or anything like that.

14:1
One Sabbath, when He went to eat at the house of one of the leading Pharisees, they were watching Him closely.

15 When one of those who reclined at the table with Him heard these things, he said to Him, “The one who will eat bread in the kingdom of God is blessed!”
--------- Jesus taught them....


I believe this next part occured after the meal possibly when Jesus was leaving the man's home

25 Now great crowds were traveling with Him. So He turned and said to them:

I think this goes in line with what we see in chapter 15

15:1
All the tax collectors and sinners were approaching to listen to Him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes were complaining, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them!”

BTW, if you notice neither Jesus or Luke call the accounts in Chapter 16 parables. Like I said before it's really wrong for us to get hung up on if these are literal or parables because the spiritural truths remain the same. We have no reason to say these are allegories.

Hi P31,

Ok but there are still Pharisees there. In the parable right before this Jesus is talking about the unjust steward. Who were the unjust stewards? Weren't they the Scribes and Pharisees? Jesus sayd the unjust steward is about to be removed from his position. Weren't the Scribes and Pharisees about to be removed from their positions? In Luke 16 we see the rich man who was a Jew because he calls Abraham father. being cast out in to out darkness while Lazarus (whose name means God help) is accepted. Remember what Jesus said,

10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(Mat 8:10-12 KJV)

Isn't this what we see in Luke 16? Lazarus sitting with Abraham and the child of the kingdom is cast out.

Another thing to consider is that Hades is not a place of fire and torment, that is Gehenna.

I disagree that we should determine whether they are literal or allegories. While I always go for a literal interpretation first, it must fit the context. I don't think a literal interpretation fits this context. I see no reason for Jesus to stop his discussion about the Pharisees to sudden go off topic and start a discussion on the after life, especially when no one questioned him about it. I mean imagine going to a conference on computers and right in the middle the speaker breaks out in a discussion on poetry then returns to computers. That wouldn't make sense.


I am interested though, what spiritual truth do you see in the account of the rich man and Lazarus?

 

[Guest]

I see no reason for Jesus to stop his discussion about the Pharisees to sudden go off topic and start a discussion on the after life, especially when no one questioned him about it. I mean imagine going to a conference on computers and right in the middle the speaker breaks out in a discussion on poetry then returns to computers. That wouldn't make sense.

That's a really good point Butch5. I just don't understand why this is such a mystery of the Bible, why nobody knows. This debate has probably been argued over for centuries, the afterlife or no afterlife in Luke 16. I find it all so strange and weird.

 

[P31Woman]

Hi P31,

Ok but there are still Pharisees there.

Yep they pretty much kept an eye on Jesus and followed him around.

In the parable right before this Jesus is talking about the unjust
steward. Who were the unjust stewards? Weren't they the Scribes and
Pharisees?

It is me! I am acting as an unfaithful steward when I am not faithful with the Master's possessions. When to the best of my ability I am not using all those things he has allowed me to have control over to do His kingdom's work. This is one of my favorite memory verses. I even put in around my classroom one time when I was teaching a class on stewardship. “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."
Notice the word "will" in that passage. That is such a mind blowing truth. God the Son gave us this truth. He then goes on to tell us another truth. We cannot serve both God and money. If you notice when people in scripture get saved the way they look at and handle their finances and possessions changes. We no longer put those things first in our life and begin to realize they are merely tools God has entrusted to us.

Jesus sayd the unjust steward is about to be removed from his position.

Yes he was about to lose his job. In verse 8 we learn, The master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted astutely. For the sons of this age are more astute than the sons of light in dealing with their own people. 9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of the unrighteous money so that when it fails, they may welcome you into eternal dwellings.

Weren't the Scribes and Pharisees about to be removed from their
positions?

What biblical position did they hold? From what I understand the only positions they held were man-made so the answer would be no they did not.

In Luke 16 we see the rich man who was a Jew because he calls Abraham
father. being cast out in to out darkness while Lazarus (whose name means God
help) is accepted. Remember what Jesus said,

10 When
Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I
say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in
Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the
east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in
the kingdom of heaven.
12 But the children of the kingdom
shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of
teeth.
(Mat 8:10-12 KJV)

Isn't this what we see in Luke 16?
Lazarus sitting with Abraham and the child of the kingdom is cast out.

I have no reason to believe Lazarus was not a Jew just like the rich man.

I disagree that we should determine whether they are literal or allegories.
While I always go for a literal interpretation first, it must fit the context. I
don't think a literal interpretation fits this context. I see no reason for
Jesus to stop his discussion about the Pharisees to sudden go off topic and
start a discussion on the after life, especially when no one questioned him
about it. I mean imagine going to a conference on computers and right in the
middle the speaker breaks out in a discussion on poetry then returns to
computers. That wouldn't make sense.

Jesus is teaching his disciples according to Luke 1 about stewardship then in verse 14
The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and scoffing at Him. 15 And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.

Hell, money and where your treasure is goes hand in hand. Where your treasure is there also is your heart. If your treasure is your money/wealth/possessions your heart will be there and it will be reflected in your actions. (not helping the begger) People who do not treasrure God will not enter the kingdom of God and will be seperated from him in hell.

Another thing to consider is that Hades is not a place of fire and torment, that is Gehenna.

From what I am reading before the resurrection Hades consisted of two chambers (for lack of a better word). One was what I believe is paradise/abraham's side and the other side is where according to Jesus the rich man was being tormented. Jesus gave us this description and I refuse to argue or debate with Him, ‘Father Abraham!’ he called out, ‘Have mercy 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 flame!’

I am interested though, what spiritual truth do you see in the account of the
rich man and Lazarus?

The rich man did not worship God and it was reflected in the way he treated the least who was Lazarus whom he could have easily helped. Lazarus must have placed his faith in God becaue he really had nothing else. People who are of the kindgom realize they are stewards and not owners of what God has entrusted to them. We are to be on our guard that we do not worship money over God like the rich man did, because it appears to be a trap many of us in the world fall into. It is probably an idol in more people's lives than we realize.

I also see that when we die there is going to be a place of seperation where those who don't place their faith in God will be tormented and even pray and have concerned about those they left behind who do not worship God. They will be aware of what is happening and their past life while on earth.

 

[Butch5]

Yep they pretty much kept an eye on Jesus and followed him around.



It is me! I am acting as an unfaithful steward when I am not faithful with the Master's possessions. When to the best of my ability I am not using all those things he has allowed me to have control over to do His kingdom's work. This is one of my favorite memory verses. I even put in around my classroom one time when I was teaching a class on stewardship. “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."
Notice the word "will" in that passage. That is such a mind blowing truth. God the Son gave us this truth. He then goes on to tell us another truth. We cannot serve both God and money. If you notice when people in scripture get saved the way they look at and handle their finances and possessions changes. We no longer put those things first in our life and begin to realize they are merely tools God has entrusted to us.

Hi P31,

You weren't a steward of God's things in Jesus' day. God had give that to the Jews.

Yes he was about to lose his job. In verse 8 we learn, The master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted astutely. For the sons of this age are more astute than the sons of light in dealing with their own people. 9 And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of the unrighteous money so that when it fails, they may welcome you into eternal dwellings.

And the Jews were about to lose theirs a the priests of God's things. Jerusalem would shortly be destroyed.

What biblical position did they hold? From what I understand the only
positions they held were man-made so the answer would be no they did not.

It's been shown that the Scribes were the interpreters of the Law.

I have no reason to believe Lazarus was not a Jew just like the rich
man.

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. (Luk 16:21 KJV)

24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.

(Mat 15:24-27 KJV)

Jesus is teaching his disciples according to Luke 1 about stewardship then in verse 14
The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and scoffing at Him. 15 And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.

Actually, I believe He is addressing both. Luke says He also spoke to the disciples. However, notice what He said,

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (Luk 16:16 KJV)

Here He is clearly telling them that the priesthood is coming to an end. The Law and the prophets were until John. Those stewards are about to be removed.

Hell, money and where your treasure is goes hand in hand.
Where your treasure is there also is your heart. If your treasure is your
money/wealth/possessions your heart will be there and it will be reflected in
your actions. (not helping the begger) People who do not treasrure God will
not enter the kingdom of God and will be seperated from him in hell.

I don't disagree that this is true, however, I don't think this is what the parable is about. Why is the rich man in Hades? For being rich? Can we assume from this passage that being rich sends one to Hell. What about Lazarus, is being a beggar they way into the Kingdom?

From what I am reading before the resurrection Hades consisted of two chambers
(for lack of a better word). One was what I believe is paradise/abraham's side
and the other side is where according to Jesus the rich man was being tormented.
Jesus gave us this description and I refuse to argue or debate with Him,
‘Father Abraham!’ he called out, ‘Have mercy 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 flame!’

Yes, but that understanding is completely unique to this parable. I'm pretty sure that you don't believe Jesus would contradict the OT Scriptures.

5 For in death no man remembers thee: and who will give thee thanks in Hades? (Psa 6:5 LXE)

10 Whatsoever thine hand shall find to do, do with all thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Hades wither thou goest. (Ecc 9:10 LXE)

18 For they that are in the grave shall not praise thee, neither shall the dead bless thee, neither shall they that are in Hades hope for thy mercy. (Isa 38:18 LXE)

The idea of a consciousness that lives on after the body dies is foreign to the OT, it's Greek philosophy that was espoused by Plato.

The rich man did not worship God and it was reflected in the way he treated the least who was Lazarus whom he could have easily helped. Lazarus must have
placed his faith in God becaue he really had nothing else. People who are of
the kindgom realize they are stewards and not owners of what God has entrusted
to them. We are to be on our guard that we do not worship money over God like
the rich man did, because it appears to be a trap many of us in the world fall
into. It is probably an idol in more people's lives than we realize.

I don't see any of this stated in the passage. It doesn't even say that the rich man didn't help Lazarus. For all we know he could have. I don't see any reason given as to why the rich man went to hades and Lazarus to Abraham's bosom.

Another point of interest: Why Abraham's bosom as opposed to Christ or the Father? Do you find it significant that they went to Abraham? The Scriptures say that Abraham is dead. Also, I wonder why he would ask Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers. Abraham can't resurrect the dead to send one back into the world.

I also see that when we die there is going to be a place of seperation where those who don't place their faith in God will be tormented and even pray and have concerned about those they left behind who do not worship God. They will be aware of what is happening and their past life while on earth.

Yet, we saw from the OT that when a person dies, they are dead, they know nothing, they are not aware. I just can't see Jesus teaching something absolutely contrary to what the Scriptures say.

If you research Hades you'll see it is not a place of torment, it's the grave.

 

[Butch5]

I see no reason for Jesus to stop his discussion about the Pharisees to sudden go off topic and start a discussion on the after life, especially when no one questioned him about it. I mean imagine going to a conference on computers and right in the middle the speaker breaks out in a discussion on poetry then returns to computers. That wouldn't make sense.

That's a really good point Butch5. I just don't understand why this is such a mystery of the Bible, why nobody knows. This debate has probably been argued over for centuries, the afterlife or no afterlife in Luke 16. I find it all so strange and weird.

Hi Urk,

Actually, it wasn't an issue in the beginning. It wasn't until Greek philosophy began to take a foothold after the apostles died that this began to be an issue. In the OT we see Hades described as the grave. The OT says the dead know nothing. The idea that a person has a consciousness that lives on is foreign to the Bible. Here are few snippets I have found.

The History of the Immortal-Soul Teaching


Despite widespread use of the phrase immortal soul, this terminology is found nowhere in the Bible. Where did the idea of an immortal soul originate?


The concept of the soul's supposed immortality was first taught in ancient Egypt and Babylon. "The belief that the soul continues in existence after the dissolution of the body is...speculation...nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture...The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended" ( Jewish Encyclopedia, 1941, Vol. 6, "Immortality of the Soul," pp. 564, 566).

Plato (428-348 B.C.), the Greek philosopher and student of Socrates, taught that the body and the "immortal soul" separate at death. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia comments on ancient Israel's view of the soul: "We are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness and is nowhere found in the Old Testament" (1960, Vol. 2, "Death," p. 812).

Early Christianity was influenced and corrupted by Greek philosophies as it spread through the Greek and Roman world. By A.D. 200 the doctrine of the immortality of the soul became a controversy among Christian believers.

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes that Origen, an early and influential Catholic theologian, was influenced by Greek thinkers: "Speculation about the soul in the subapostolic church was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. This is seen in Origen's acceptance of Plato's doctrine of the preexistence of the soul as pure mind ( nous ) originally, which, by reason of its fall from God, cooled down to soul ( psyche ) when it lost its participation in the divine fire by looking earthward" (1992, "Soul," p. 1037).

Secular history reveals that the concept of the immortality of the soul is an ancient belief embraced by many pagan religions. But it's not a biblical teaching and is not found in either the Old or New Testaments.

 

[Guest]

Hi Urk,

Actually, it wasn't an issue in the beginning. It wasn't until Greek philosophy began to take a foothold after the apostles died that this began to be an issue. In the OT we see Hades described as the grave. The OT says the dead know nothing. The idea that a person has a consciousness that lives on is foreign to the Bible. Here are few snippets I have found.

The History of the Immortal-Soul Teaching


Despite widespread use of the phrase immortal soul, this terminology is found nowhere in the Bible. Where did the idea of an immortal soul originate?


The concept of the soul's supposed immortality was first taught in ancient Egypt and Babylon. "The belief that the soul continues in existence after the dissolution of the body is...speculation...nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture...The belief in the immortality of the soul came to the Jews from contact with Greek thought and chiefly through the philosophy of Plato, its principal exponent, who was led to it through Orphic and Eleusinian mysteries in which Babylonian and Egyptian views were strangely blended" ( Jewish Encyclopedia, 1941, Vol. 6, "Immortality of the Soul," pp. 564, 566).

Plato (428-348 B.C.), the Greek philosopher and student of Socrates, taught that the body and the "immortal soul" separate at death. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia comments on ancient Israel's view of the soul: "We are influenced always more or less by the Greek, Platonic idea that the body dies, yet the soul is immortal. Such an idea is utterly contrary to the Israelite consciousness and is nowhere found in the Old Testament" (1960, Vol. 2, "Death," p. 812).

Early Christianity was influenced and corrupted by Greek philosophies as it spread through the Greek and Roman world. By A.D. 200 the doctrine of the immortality of the soul became a controversy among Christian believers.

The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology notes that Origen, an early and influential Catholic theologian, was influenced by Greek thinkers: "Speculation about the soul in the subapostolic church was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. This is seen in Origen's acceptance of Plato's doctrine of the preexistence of the soul as pure mind ( nous ) originally, which, by reason of its fall from God, cooled down to soul ( psyche ) when it lost its participation in the divine fire by looking earthward" (1992, "Soul," p. 1037).

Secular history reveals that the concept of the immortality of the soul is an ancient belief embraced by many pagan religions. But it's not a biblical teaching and is not found in either the Old or New Testaments.

If this is so, then what are we resurrected into on the new earth, if it isn't our resurrected soul and spirit inside our bodies. What will our new resurrected bodies consist of? Blessings.

 

[P31Woman]

Hi P31,

You weren't a steward of God's things in Jesus' day. God had give that to the Jews.

God fearers were people who were not Jews but desired to worship God. These people were God's stewards. A steward is what you are when God is your master.

And the Jews were about to lose theirs a the priests of God's things. Jerusalem would shortly be destroyed.

Not sure what you mean. Most Jews were not priest. As far as we know there were no priest were in attendance when Jesus spoke these words. You are correct that the temple/Jerusalem was going to be destroyed. Their priest would have no place to make their sacrifices and do their temple work.

It's been shown that the Scribes were the interpreters of the Law.

That does not mean they were Priest. If Jesus wanted to say something about the Priesthood he could have certainly used the term priesthood or God could have had Dr. Luke to recored that for us.

And desiring to be fed with the crumbs
which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his
sores. (Luk 16:21 KJV)





24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.


25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help
me.


26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take
the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.


27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of
the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.





(Mat 15:24-27 KJV)

We still have no reason to believe Lazarus was not a Jew just like the rich man. If Jesus wanted us to believe this man was a gentile again he could have used the word or God could have had Dr. Luke pen for us that Lazarus was a gentile.

Actually, I believe He is addressing both. Luke says He also spoke to the disciples. However, notice what He said,

16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. (Luk 16:16 KJV)

Here He is clearly telling them that the priesthood is coming to an end. The Law and the prophets were until John. Those stewards are about to be removed.

Why do you say "clearly" the priesthood has not been mentioned in this entire chapter. Not even the mention of "one" priest. He is talking about money.

14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and scoffing at Him. 15 And He told them: “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.

16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is strongly urged to enter it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out.

18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and everyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

In keeping with the theme of money I believe Jesus knew the Pharisees were thinking, "great we don't have to give those tithes every year"! We can divorce our wives at will and not obey the laws of Moses!

I don't disagree that this is true, however, I don't think this is what the parable is about. Why is the rich man in Hades? For being rich? Can we assume from this passage that being rich sends one to Hell. What about Lazarus, is being a beggar they way into the Kingdom?

The rich man went to Hades because he chose to make money his master and not God.

Going to paradise/abraham's side has to do with faith in God.

Yes, but that understanding is completely unique to this parable. I'm pretty sure that you don't believe Jesus would contradict the OT Scriptures.

5 For in death no man remembers thee: and who will give thee thanks in Hades? (Psa 6:5 LXE)

10 Whatsoever thine hand shall find to do, do with all thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Hades wither thou goest. (Ecc 9:10 LXE)

18 For they that are in the grave shall not praise thee, neither shall the dead bless thee, neither shall they that are in Hades hope for thy mercy. (Isa 38:18 LXE)

The idea of a consciousness that lives on after the body dies is foreign to the OT, it's Greek philosophy that was espoused by Plato.

What Plato believed has nothing to do with this passage. Who cares what they believed in OT times? This is the New Testament! Scripture is progressive revelation. We know more about Hades in the NT than we know in the OT. Same with the Messiah. We know more about the Messiah in the NT than in the old. This teaching does not contradict scripture.

I don't see any of this stated in the passage. It doesn't even say that the rich man didn't help Lazarus. For all we know he could have. I don't see any reason given as to why the rich man went to hades and Lazarus to Abraham's bosom.

You have got to be kidding us!

Another point of interest: Why Abraham's bosom as opposed to Christ or the Father? Do you find it significant that they went to Abraham? The Scriptures say that Abraham is dead. Also, I wonder why he would ask Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers. Abraham can't resurrect the dead to send one back into the world.
]

Let's think for 30 seconds. Jesus was on the earth teaching us this very story. The Father is in heaven and the only way for us to go to heaven is through the shed blood of Christ and at that poing in history Jesus had not yet been to the cross.

He was probably asking Abraham to do whatever he could to send Lazarus back to his brothers.

Yet, we saw from the OT that when a person dies, they are dead, they know nothing, they are not aware. I just can't see Jesus teaching something absolutely contrary to what the Scriptures say.

Scripture is progressive revelation.

If you research Hades you'll see it is not a place of torment, it's the grave.

Not according to Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior.

 

[P31Woman]

29 But Abraham said, They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear and listen to them.

30 But he answered, No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent (change their minds for the better and heartily amend their ways, with abhorrence of their past sins).

31 He said to him, If they do not hear and listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded and convinced and believe [even] if someone should rise from the dead

I don't care for the AMP but I don't think it's possible to make it any clearer that the rich man believed his borthers would REPENT

 

[Butch5]

Scripture is progressive revelation.

Yes, it is. However, new revelation doesn't contradict what came before.