Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!
- Thread starter Phoneman-777
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Let me guess, the following passage is a metaphor and not to be taken literally?
Acts 2:
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
Acts 2:
30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
The "certain rich man", in context, is the covetous nation of 'Judah' (for that is to whom Jesus was speaking to, even all the way back in Luke 11:24, "a man", the "evil generation", "generation" (vs 29-32)), who had "five brothers" (Lk. 16:28) by the same mother "Leah", who were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun (the other tribes, nations). The names Abraham (father of nations; Gn. 17:5) and Lazarus (NT for OT Eliezar (which means 'the poor', not a single person, but many, as the rich man represents many); Gn. 15:2), are used as symbolic names, for what they mean. Jesus, in context, is speaking to "Pharisees" (Lk. 16:14-15), and Jesus always spoke to them in "parables" (Mt. 13:34), and this in fulfillment of the Psalms (Ps. 78:2). Parables in scripture can contain proper names, but used for what their name means (Nm. 24:3,15 in example). The Parable, comes in a series of parables, see Lk. 14:7 (guests), Lk. 14:16 (dinner and place), Lk. 15:3 (100 Sheep, lose one), Lk. 15:8 (Woman and coin), Lk. 15:11 (Prodigals), Lk. 16:1 (Rich steward) and the pharisees, and others were the covetous ones, to whom Jesus was addressing. The remainder of the symbols in the parable and their meaning, are simply identified by other places in the scripture, to which Jesus or others already spake of. They had failed to take of the wealth that God had given them, to the lost, and poor, and were hoarding it to themselves, despising those with nothing, around them. Do people really think that the Bible, or Jesus for that matter, teaches that he can send the dead to give warning to the living? God forbade that in the OT, and even King Saul was condemned for believing such.
"
THAT IS THE MIND WHICH PRODUCED THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES!
Solomon himself was no longer obeying God when he wrote this book. He knew what was right, but he himself wasn't putting into practice the things he knew were right. And he knew that God was angry with him."
https://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=157
"
As you know ... after becoming wealthy and successful and sensual ... Solomon fell into sin! He backslid on God!
I believe Ecclesiastes probably records his laments and sorrows and vanities ... having lived in sin for so long!"
...
But it just appears to me that these are the words of an old sorrowful man who backslid from God ... and is sorry for what he's done!
...
Oh, one more quick point that illustrates a change of heart on Solomon's part. In his backslidden life he had many wives and girlfriends. "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart." 1st Kings 11:3
...
Here's a sad verse: "For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." 1 Kings 11:5
Solomon had backslidden!"
http://drmikebagwell.org/Web Pages/Old Testament/Ecclesiastes, The Book.html[/QUOTE] ??? Solomon was in his right mind when he wrote the book...read 12:13-14 KJV. He was back on track, for sure.
2 Peter 2:9 KJV completely disagrees with that, for the following reasons:
"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the Godly out of temptation, and to RESERVE ...
(is not the purpose of a "reservation" for scheduling a future event before the event takes place?)
...the unjust UNTO...
(does not the the use of the word "UNTO" here mean "unto the future"?)
...the day of JUDGMENT...
(is not the Judgment a future event which hasn't taken place yet?)
...TO BE punished".
(again, unmistakable reference to a future event.)
There is NOTHING you can do to undo the plain teaching of this verse or the damage done by it to the false idea that hellfire is burning right now. The Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable, and the "flames of torment" contained therein have nothing to do with the reward of the wicked in the Judgment - they are a parabolic symbol which must be interpreted.
THAT IS THE MIND WHICH PRODUCED THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES!
Solomon himself was no longer obeying God when he wrote this book. He knew what was right, but he himself wasn't putting into practice the things he knew were right. And he knew that God was angry with him."
https://www.franknelte.net/article.php?article_id=157
"
As you know ... after becoming wealthy and successful and sensual ... Solomon fell into sin! He backslid on God!
I believe Ecclesiastes probably records his laments and sorrows and vanities ... having lived in sin for so long!"
...
But it just appears to me that these are the words of an old sorrowful man who backslid from God ... and is sorry for what he's done!
...
Oh, one more quick point that illustrates a change of heart on Solomon's part. In his backslidden life he had many wives and girlfriends. "And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart." 1st Kings 11:3
...
Here's a sad verse: "For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the abomination of the Ammonites." 1 Kings 11:5
Solomon had backslidden!"
http://drmikebagwell.org/Web Pages/Old Testament/Ecclesiastes, The Book.html[/QUOTE] ??? Solomon was in his right mind when he wrote the book...read 12:13-14 KJV. He was back on track, for sure.
2 Peter 2:9 KJV completely disagrees with that, for the following reasons:
"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the Godly out of temptation, and to RESERVE ...
(is not the purpose of a "reservation" for scheduling a future event before the event takes place?)
...the unjust UNTO...
(does not the the use of the word "UNTO" here mean "unto the future"?)
...the day of JUDGMENT...
(is not the Judgment a future event which hasn't taken place yet?)
...TO BE punished".
(again, unmistakable reference to a future event.)
There is NOTHING you can do to undo the plain teaching of this verse or the damage done by it to the false idea that hellfire is burning right now. The Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable, and the "flames of torment" contained therein have nothing to do with the reward of the wicked in the Judgment - they are a parabolic symbol which must be interpreted.
You guess totally wrong. The passage is not symbolic.
Jesus went to "hades" aka "the place of the dead" aka "the grave". "Hades" is not some "subterranean chamber" where dead people are alive making noise and shrieking in flames or wailing to be freed from whatever has them ensnared. The Bible is clear the dead "go down into silence" and they "know not anything", nor have they a body, emotions, discernment, wisdom, praise for God, or anything to do with anything under this sun.
Jesus went to "hades" aka "the place of the dead" aka "the grave". "Hades" is not some "subterranean chamber" where dead people are alive making noise and shrieking in flames or wailing to be freed from whatever has them ensnared. The Bible is clear the dead "go down into silence" and they "know not anything", nor have they a body, emotions, discernment, wisdom, praise for God, or anything to do with anything under this sun.
Question: Since Genesis 2:7 KJV plainly says the Soul comes into existence ONLY as a consequence of the union of the Body and the Breath of Life, how can the Soul continue to exist after death when the Breath of Life returns to God and the Body returns to the dust?
How can any other interpretation about death satisfy the demands of Genesis 2:7 KJV?
Is not your interpretation identical to claiming that when electrical current passes through a bulb and light comes into existence, that same light will keep on shining after the electrical current is removed from the bulb? Sure it is!
How can any other interpretation about death satisfy the demands of Genesis 2:7 KJV?
Is not your interpretation identical to claiming that when electrical current passes through a bulb and light comes into existence, that same light will keep on shining after the electrical current is removed from the bulb? Sure it is!
this is you doing the whole "pretend paragraph 4 doesn't exist" thing again.
in context he is talking about continuance in life, not about continuance in existence.
he maintains that the soul is eternally existing, according to God's will.
the soul that eternally exists can receive eternal life or exist eternally with life deprived of it.
and that is exactly what Christ said - those who receive Him go into eternal reward, and those who reject Him go into eternal punishment. whoever has the Son has eternal life, and whoever does not have the Son, even what he has is taken away from him: the life added to every soul in this present world.
Irenaeus is arguing for an eternal soul that is judged and fixed in one of two states: eternal light or eternal darkness.
the immortal soul is either granted continuance in life, or that continuance in life is removed from it.
life and existence are very different things.
he is absolutely not teaching annihilationism. go read the text again
in context he is talking about continuance in life, not about continuance in existence.
he maintains that the soul is eternally existing, according to God's will.
the soul that eternally exists can receive eternal life or exist eternally with life deprived of it.
and that is exactly what Christ said - those who receive Him go into eternal reward, and those who reject Him go into eternal punishment. whoever has the Son has eternal life, and whoever does not have the Son, even what he has is taken away from him: the life added to every soul in this present world.
Irenaeus is arguing for an eternal soul that is judged and fixed in one of two states: eternal light or eternal darkness.
the immortal soul is either granted continuance in life, or that continuance in life is removed from it.
life and existence are very different things.
he is absolutely not teaching annihilationism. go read the text again
-
1
- Show all
It's hell not hades...stick with the KJV. It will never fail you. Jesus descended into hell located in the lower parts of the earth. His spirit returned to God. His body placed in the tomb. His soul went to the heart of the earth. This is not the grave. It is a real place called hell. Hell is hot. Hell is a place of torment. Hell is located in the heart of the earth. That's bible. Satan does not want man to believe in such a place.
Ephesians 4:
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Who ascended up on high? Jesus
Who first descended into the lower parts of the earth? Jesus
Whose soul was not left in hell? Jesus
Ephesians 4:
8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Who ascended up on high? Jesus
Who first descended into the lower parts of the earth? Jesus
Whose soul was not left in hell? Jesus
The koine Greek is "ᾅδῃ" ([h]ade) which means pit, or place of the deceased, and translated into English (King James), is "hell", which by definition, is simply a hole, or pit in the ground, in old English. Like this place is a real 'hell-hole', or I am gonna go 'helling' potatoes.
" The Indo-European root behind Old English hel and Old Norse hel, as well as their Germanic relatives like German Hölle, "hell," is *kel-, "to cover, conceal." In origin, hell is thus the "concealed place." The root *kel-, also gives us other words for things that cover, conceal, or contain, such as hall, hole, hollow, helmet, and even Valhalla, from Old Norse Valhöll, literally the "Hall (höll) of the Slain (Valr)."" - https://www.thefreedictionary.com/helling
"A ‘helmet’ is literally a ‘hell-met’, meaning a covering for the head. In old English, especially in Scotland, there was the practice of "helling potatoes", burying them underground in Winter, covering them, in order to preserve them; putting a thatched roof on a building was to "hell a house", to cover it. The village of Hellington in Eastern England was originally so named because of the thatchers who lived there- those who 'helled' rooves. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, defines “Hell” as coming “from . . . helan, to conceal”. Biblically, this ‘covered place’, or ‘hell’, is the grave (1). There are many examples where the original word ‘sheol’ is translated ‘grave’. Indeed, some modern Bible versions scarcely use the word ‘hell’, translating it more properly as ‘grave’." - http://www.realdevil.info/2-5.htm
It simply means to bury in a pit, covered over, which in the context of Lk. 16:22, the "certain rich man" (Judah), died (spiritually) and was 'buried'. Jesus elsewhere said, Mt. 8:22; Lk. 9:60, "Let the dead bury their dead."
" The Indo-European root behind Old English hel and Old Norse hel, as well as their Germanic relatives like German Hölle, "hell," is *kel-, "to cover, conceal." In origin, hell is thus the "concealed place." The root *kel-, also gives us other words for things that cover, conceal, or contain, such as hall, hole, hollow, helmet, and even Valhalla, from Old Norse Valhöll, literally the "Hall (höll) of the Slain (Valr)."" - https://www.thefreedictionary.com/helling
"A ‘helmet’ is literally a ‘hell-met’, meaning a covering for the head. In old English, especially in Scotland, there was the practice of "helling potatoes", burying them underground in Winter, covering them, in order to preserve them; putting a thatched roof on a building was to "hell a house", to cover it. The village of Hellington in Eastern England was originally so named because of the thatchers who lived there- those who 'helled' rooves. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, defines “Hell” as coming “from . . . helan, to conceal”. Biblically, this ‘covered place’, or ‘hell’, is the grave (1). There are many examples where the original word ‘sheol’ is translated ‘grave’. Indeed, some modern Bible versions scarcely use the word ‘hell’, translating it more properly as ‘grave’." - http://www.realdevil.info/2-5.htm
It simply means to bury in a pit, covered over, which in the context of Lk. 16:22, the "certain rich man" (Judah), died (spiritually) and was 'buried'. Jesus elsewhere said, Mt. 8:22; Lk. 9:60, "Let the dead bury their dead."
-
1
- Show all
Thanks, I love the KJV. I prefer to keep Genesis 2:7 in harmony with the rest of the "soul" Scriptures. We gotta remember that "soul" means "life" as well as the whole person, the "I", the "ego", the "self". Therefore, Jesus' Spirit ascended to God, His body descended in the Earth which is the tomb, and the man Jesus ceased to be for a few hours.
If we insist Jesus, the "living Soul", continued to exist after His Spirit and Body separated, it's the same thing as saying the light emitted by a bulb with electric current coursing through it will continue to shine even after the current is switched off...which is not possible, right or wrong?
If we insist Jesus, the "living Soul", continued to exist after His Spirit and Body separated, it's the same thing as saying the light emitted by a bulb with electric current coursing through it will continue to shine even after the current is switched off...which is not possible, right or wrong?
I for one really appreciate this. Further evidence that "hell" doesn't necessarily mean a "fiery, burning, blazing place of torment". "Hades" is translated "place of the dead" and "grave" which is exactly what it is: the place where dead are BURIED, not alive and doing all the things that the Bible authors like Solomon, David, Job, Jesus, etc., say is IMPOSSIBLE.
It should be clear that, for the unredeemed sinner, there is going to be everlasting punishment in the form of everlasting fire where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. There is also the fate of being cast into outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
In the latter scenario, I believe that the person will not be burned up because the source of their suffering will not be fire but the fact of being in outer darkness.
In the former scenario I also believe that the person will not be burned up because they are being destroyed everlastingly according to the equation y = 1 / x.
Now, if you want to believe that there is not everlasting torments in the lake of fire, as Revelation 20:10 plainly states there is, then that is on you. But I wonder what your motivation is for believing that way? Is it because you know that you yourself are not going to heaven and are looking for mercy? Is it because you want to live a lifestyle deserving of not going to heaven and want the punishment to be less than what it really is so that you can continue headlong into that lifestyle without the restrictions and restraint of fear of eternal condemnation?
I will preach that hell is everlasting torments even if I were to begin to believe that it were mere annihilation. Because mere annihilation may not be enough of a deterrent; while everlasting torments is a deterrent that I think has the power to wake up even the soul that is in the deepest slumber. Therefore for the sake of the people who are under my teaching, I will preach the thing that serves as the greatest deterrent concerning sin; as that is the teaching that is most adherent to the love of the Lord.
In the latter scenario, I believe that the person will not be burned up because the source of their suffering will not be fire but the fact of being in outer darkness.
In the former scenario I also believe that the person will not be burned up because they are being destroyed everlastingly according to the equation y = 1 / x.
Now, if you want to believe that there is not everlasting torments in the lake of fire, as Revelation 20:10 plainly states there is, then that is on you. But I wonder what your motivation is for believing that way? Is it because you know that you yourself are not going to heaven and are looking for mercy? Is it because you want to live a lifestyle deserving of not going to heaven and want the punishment to be less than what it really is so that you can continue headlong into that lifestyle without the restrictions and restraint of fear of eternal condemnation?
I will preach that hell is everlasting torments even if I were to begin to believe that it were mere annihilation. Because mere annihilation may not be enough of a deterrent; while everlasting torments is a deterrent that I think has the power to wake up even the soul that is in the deepest slumber. Therefore for the sake of the people who are under my teaching, I will preach the thing that serves as the greatest deterrent concerning sin; as that is the teaching that is most adherent to the love of the Lord.