How do you explain Matthew 10, 28

[unred typo]

19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
25But Abraham said, Son, remember that you in thy lifetime received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and you are tormented.
26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house:
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham said unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Drew, I think the best example of what happens after death is the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 posted above. Either you have to take this as literal, depicting actual events in picturesque language, or you have to take it as a real life example, having a symbolic spiritual meaning.

If you say the rich man represents one thing and Lazarus another, as in the story of the wicked stewards who kill the landowner’s son, you would have to admit that the story is based on the actual case of the afterlife. In parables, Jesus used real life events that the people were familiar with, such as sowing seed, making bread, and local marriage customs to help them relate to the spiritual meaning. If that’s the case here, the rich man and Lazarus’ deaths are the actual death experience figuratively depicting a spiritual meaning.

If you take it as symbolic language to tell of events that are happening but not literally as expressed, such as the vials of wrath being poured out in Revelation, you must admit to the figurative events themselves as depicting real misery and real distress and real suffering. During a physical fever, a person can be described as burning up. They are not literally in flames, but the suffering is literal.

Either way, the suffering must be real and immediate.
I can’t escape the fact that after death, the unnamed rich man is taken to another place and in that place he feels miserable and thirsty. I don’t believe it has to be actual fire as we understand it, but a sense of burning torment from which he yearns for any relief. It doesn’t hold true that he is simply unconscious or sleeping or doesn’t exist. He is experiencing some sort of discomfort that equals the pleasure he enjoyed while he lived.

Since there is no actual body that we are connected to, there could be no way to alleviate the desires of the flesh that we have grown accustomed to while living. We would be stuck with a phantom pain like a person has in an amputated limb. Hence, the admonition to put to death those desires that infiltrate our being and will burn as fire when we leave our bodies, as it says in James 5:
1Go to now, you rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you.
2Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth eaten.
3Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. You have heaped treasure together for the last days.


Lazarus, however, seems to be in a place of rest where he may even be sleeping comfortably. In our natural sleeping condition, we can be both tormented with horrible nightmares or experiencing pleasurable dreams. I don’t see why we should assume that the sleeping state is a situation of non-existence.

As for the length and intensity of this torment, I believe it will be equal to the amount of sinful pleasure we enjoyed in life and to the degree that we were able to ease someone else’s pain in this life but were callous toward their suffering. When the wicked dead have reached the extent of ‘payback,’ then I would assume that they simply await the judgment in a state of uncertainty and fearfulness that could also be called torturous. ‘Wailing and gnashing of teeth’ is the term that Jesus used and, no doubt, best describes it. How much better off to be ‘in Christ’ and resting comfortably, knowing our sins are forgiven and we have already put to death the old nature that would cause us to experience such misery.

 

[Drew]

Drew, I think the best example of what happens after death is the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 posted above. Either you have to take this as literal, depicting actual events in picturesque language, or you have to take it as a real life example, having a symbolic spiritual meaning.

It feels very strange to not see things exactly the way you do - a rare event to this point.

Why can I not take the text to be entirely a parable, which is, in fact, how I see this account?

If you say the rich man represents one thing and Lazarus another, as in the story of the wicked stewards who kill the landowner’s son, you would have to admit that the story is based on the actual case of the afterlife. In parables, Jesus used real life events that the people were familiar with, such as sowing seed, making bread, and local marriage customs to help them relate to the spiritual meaning. If that’s the case here, the rich man and Lazarus’ deaths are the actual death experience figuratively depicting a spiritual meaning.

Are you not overlooking the possibility that the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking (if I remember accurately) would indeed see purely symbollic elements in this account - the rich man with the purple (royal colour) robes with the five brothers representing, say, the leadership of national Israel and Lazarus representing the Gentiles? Remember that Judah, often used to represent all Israel I believe, had five brothers through Leah. I assume you are not appealing to the "Jesus never used real names in other parables, so, for this reason alone, this can't be a parable" argument?

I see this story as a pointed critique by Jesus of the Jewish leadership - He is, I suggest, basically telling them that national Israel has not been faithful and that she will be punished by having her "national boast" undermined such as by having the "Lazarus-like" Gentiles grafted into the true family of God. I suggest that Jesus is appealing to a metaphor about the after-life to make a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of life after death.

Note how just before the Lazarus / rich man account we have the parable of the shrewd manager. Jesus says this:

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. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own

Can you see how one could taken this a criticism of the leaders of Israel in respect to their faithfulness in being a "light to the nations?" And can you see how this establishes the general tenor of the conversation that leads up to the delivery of the Lazarus / rich man account?

 

[unred typo]

quote by Drew on Wed Oct 24, 2007:
It feels very strange to not see things exactly the way you do - a rare event to this point.

Why can I not take the text to be entirely a parable, which is, in fact, how I see this account?

I don’t really want to disagree with you and you certainly are entitled to see this as you do. My own mind is not completely happy with my tentative stance either. Truth be known, I would love to be convinced that hell is not all it has been cracked up to be.
The issue is entirely open to discussion as far as I’m concerned.
The resulting views will not make much difference in how one lives his life, which is the important matter.

quote by Drew:
Are you not overlooking the possibility that the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking (if I remember accurately) would indeed see purely symbollic elements in this account - the rich man with the purple (royal colour) robes with the five brothers representing, say, the leadership of national Israel and Lazarus representing the Gentiles? Remember that Judah, often used to represent all Israel I believe, had five brothers through Leah. I assume you are not appealing to the "Jesus never used real names in other parables, so, for this reason alone, this can't be a parable" argument?

I don’t discount the possibility of it being a parable because of the use of a real name, no. The thing is, why use imaginary elements to be symbolic of real events? Surely the Lord could have come up with a more accurate account rather than perpetuate what would have been a myth. Also, the number 5 has no real significance that I can recall. Leah had 6 sons and 2 by her handmaid, and Rachel had 2 sons and 2 by her handmaid, which became the twelve sons of Jacob. I don’t recall the five brothers of Judah as being separated from the other boys in any other symbolism, do you?

quote by Drew:
I see this story as a pointed critique by Jesus of the Jewish leadership - He is, I suggest, basically telling them that national Israel has not been faithful and that she will be punished by having her "national boast" undermined such as by having the "Lazarus-like" Gentiles grafted into the true family of God. I suggest that Jesus is appealing to a metaphor about the after-life to make a point that has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of life after death.

If that were the point of the story, why not just tell of a beggar who was invited to a wedding feast in stead of the ones originally invited? Shouldn’t Jesus make some attempt to set the record straight concerning ‘hell’ myths that perpetuate this ‘error’ in the thinking of most Jews?

quote by Drew:
Note how just before the Lazarus / rich man account we have the parable of the shrewd manager. Jesus says this:

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. 11So if you have not been trustworthy in handling worldly wealth, who will trust you with true riches? 12And if you have not been trustworthy with someone else's property, who will give you property of your own

Can you see how one could taken this a criticism of the leaders of Israel in respect to their faithfulness in being a "light to the nations?" And can you see how this establishes the general tenor of the conversation that leads up to the delivery of the Lazarus / rich man account?

I could if I really tried to, I suppose, but I think I would have to force the text to fit into that scenario. I can easily see that Jesus is first setting up the idea that their earthly wealth was given to them to share, not to hoard, and the statement is made that the Pharisees were covetous. The whole tenor of the chapter is about the danger of setting earthly riches ahead of heavenly reward. It sounds to me like a warning against greed and the consequences of not having mercy on those less fortunate. I know that is not a very deep theological concept but I’m a rather simple person myself. Sometimes, the answer is just too obvious to see.

 

[Vic C.]

Bump for correction:

"Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord-- for we walk by faith, not by sight-- we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:6).

Hello cybershark:

Let me start with 2 Cor 5:6. This text is often used as "proof" that we "go straight to heaven in a conscious state". I have argued, and continue to claim, that this text is probably to be taken as a "what it will be like for us as subjects of experience" statement, not a statement of what is factually the case (i.e. in a third person objective sense)....

The verse in question is 5:8, not just 5:6. ... and isn't the topic here Matthew 10: 28? ;-) I think we've beaten the rich man to death one too many times... for now. 8-)

 

[Bick]

MATTHEW 10

28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

Who are the ones who kill the soul, and how it does?

I can give my views:

Since 'all scripture is inspired of God', we must use all of it to understand "soul". You must do the study for yourself.

Briefly, SOUL could be said to be the consciousness, the feelings, the desires, produced by the breath of life vitalizing the body.

Gen.2:7 reads, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Starting with Matt.10:26, Jesus is encouraging his twelve disciples to not be afraid of those who would persecute them (He was just sending them out to the towns and villages, preaching the gospel of the kingdom), even possible killing them.

Jesus tells them to not be afraid of them (the world) who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul;
but rather be afraid of the one (God or Christ) who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.

TO ME this means that even if killed, his followers would be resurrected in the kingdom and be able to enjoy all that it is, being living souls.

In the Messianic Kingdom, it is my opinion that Gehenna will again be outside the walls of the restored Jerusalem, and anyone who is convicted of sin will be stoned and cast into Gehenna, thus destroying both body and soul.

 

[guibox]

Yes, even if 'soul' denoted that 'immaterial part of man that consciously survives the body', this verse makes it plain that God CAN destroy it. It is not immortal. It is not wrapped up in God and it is not part of God for why would (and how could) God destroy part of Himself that is immortal in us?

Second, if God CAN but chooses NOT to destroy us in hell, He is a cruel tyrant who WANT sinners to be punished for eternity.

So even if one translates the soul as such, there is still a problem.

However, as Bick pointed out, 'soul' here denotes 'life'. Man can destroy the body but he cannot control eternity. Only God can leave ones life to perish in the grave. The righteous are resurrected to eternal life. Man cannot give or take that away.