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.
I applaud your recognition that "naked" and "unclothed" has nothing to do with "spiritual condition".
Paul is saying he wants to be rid of this earthly body, skip the part where we lie naked and unclothed in the grave without a body awaiting the resurrection, and go on to be with Jesus in his resurrection body.
That's what he means by, "we are confident and willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord". He's not saying to be absent from the one IS TO BE present in the other at all - he's saying he rather be absent from the one and present in the other. The fact that he says the Christian's desire is not to be naked and unclothed is evidence enough that being naked and unclothed is a part of the process of dying.
If we're honest, we have to admit that "naked" and "unclothed" is the intermediate state between this earthly house of this tabernacle, and the building of God eternal in the heavens, which Paul knew would not be his until Jesus comes in the resurrection.
He himself says that he would put on his immortal body "at the last trump" which is blown at the coming of Jesus when is heard Lord's "shout", "voice", and the "trump of God".
Amen! So, when Paul says the Christian's desire is not to be naked without a body, but to be clothed upon with a body, that right there is proof positive that being naked and unclothed is part of the process of dying.
If the popular misquotation "to be absent from this body IS TO BE present with the Lord" was correct, Paul would have never discouraged the Christian from desiring to be unclothed without a body naked in the grave awaiting the resurrection as a means of escaping the burdens of this life experienced in our mortal body.
The fact that he says it's not our desire to be naked and unclothed proves it's not only possible to be in this intermediate state between our mortal body and our resurrection body, but is in fact what happens to everyone. Paul is simply expressing his and the Christian's desire to be absent from this body of suffering, skip the nakedness of the grave, and just go on to be with Jesus, but he knew "this mortal shall put on immortality" would only happen at the "last trump" when the dead arise to meet Jesus at the Second Coming.
So, why do you guys defy Scripture by insisting the dead put on there "building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens"?
you are welcome!
I don't agree with the bolded part.
The language is clear that what Paul said WAS about being one or the other. Those who are alive are absent from the Lord, and present in their body. Those who have died are absent from the body and present with the Lord.
The Bible is silent as to the state of the soul after death. All the talk about the soul sleeping is metaphorical, simply for physical death.
Some Bible teachers have suggested that the soul is in an "interim body". We simply do not know.
I appreciate your willingness to speak about this. One thing is for certain -- we simply cannot ignore the fact that Paul's mention of "naked" and "unclothed" destroys the notion of there being only two options: (1) "clothed down here" or (2) "clothed up there". I'm not trying to win an argument, only to REASON this out.
Look, there's a time to split hairs and a time to not. This is just such a time. Can you offer any explanation for why Paul mentions "naked" and "unclothed" if he's not referring to that third, intermediate state between "clothed down here" and "clothed up there" which seems to have as the only possibility "lying naked in the grave without a body awaiting the resurrection"?
The best answer I have is that Paul is saying that our souls prefers to have a body, and we don't have a body at death, not until the resurrection.
Years ago, I heard a pastor explain that dead believers have an 'interim body', apparently. The thing is, the Bible doesn't address the issue of what the soul looks like between death and the resurrection. However, the Bible does make clear that those who are dead do have recognizable appearances, such as the seance where Nathan the prophet came back to give Saul a prophecy, and John saw "souls under the altar" in heaven in Rev 6. And Jesus told of a poor man Lazarus and a rich man who recognized each other after death in the place where the souls of all the dead went.
This would fit your conclusion that the word "destroys the notion of there being only 2 options". The "interim body".
We will certainly find out when we die.
I just joined this forum, so I have not had time to read everything. I definitely agree with the above however.
I would also add that it applies to the following verse as well...
Genesis 2:25
"And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."
As far as the OP being a 'parable', which I assume you mean it is not literal, then I would respectfully disagree.
I believe Abraham's Bosom exists to this very day. It is also called Paradise. That is where Jesus resides until this verse is fulfilled...
Revelation 6:11
"And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled."
The Saved are resting there in Abraham's Bosom until the Fellowservants are killed.
OK.
Now that I know your views on what happens after the Lake of Fire, why would you even care about what happens in Hell?
Hell is emptied out anyhow...
Revelation 20:13
"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."
Most of what you have there is not even Biblical to begin with. They are just Strawmen arguments with no verses to back them up.
1. Where is the contradiction?
2. Where in the Bible does it say the dead are in their resurrection bodies for receiving them?
3. A man totally on fire? You mean the Rich Man? That is not what the Bible teaches.
4. Abraham's Bosom the size of the Moon? Lol... no verse teaches that!
5. OK and? There are many in the Bible who rose from the dead and interacted with those in the land of the living.
It would appear you are just making things up.
Ah. Now I see what your issue is.
You do not know what a Body, Soul, and Spirit is, much less the important differences between them.
Therefore, you are unable to comprehend what Hell (Hades) and Torments is all about.
So, because you do not know the answer to your own question, you conclude that it 'must not be literal'.
OK.
If Solomon says the dead "return no more again to his house" and "know not anything" and have nothing to do "with anything that is done under the sun"...is it proper to claim Samuel returned to Saul or was it a "familiar spirit" (which is a demon impersonating a dead person) that visited Saul, which the book of Chronicles says the reason Saul died is because he sought out one that had such a spirit?
Welcome! Of course, we must remain consistent. It's inconsistent for us to claim the passage in Luke 16 is literal, but then make the elements therein symbolic. If the passage is literal, then all the literal righteous dead from Adam until Jesus must literally go into Abraham's literal bosom at death - which cannot be possible.
However, making "Abraham's Bosom" a symbolic element of the passage proves the passage is symbolic. Besides, there are too many contradictions which arise if we make the passage literal, such as how can these three dead guys have bodies before the resurrection when the Bible only speaks of TWO kinds of bodies: the one we have now and the one we get in the resurrection?
Some will say, "it must be speaking of some 'soul body' that exists between the one we have now and the one we get later"...fine, but where is the text? We can read the Bible from cover to cover and we will not find a single line supporting that
Hold on, there! Let's not start off on the wrong foot by making such assertions before the evidence has a chance to speak, OK?
If all the literal righteous dead go bodily into Abraham's literal bosom, what size must that bosom be to accommodate al those dead? The moon? What about Texas?
You can't have it both ways - either the bosom is literal and passage are literal or the bosom and passage are symbolic.
I'll share with you from Genesis 2:7 KJV what the Bible says is the difference:
Body = dust of the ground
Breath of Life = what God breathes into the dust of the ground to turn it into a living Soul
Living Soul = what comes into existence at the union of the Body and the Breath of Life
Body + Breath = Soul comes into existence
Body - Breath = Soul goes out of existence
Most believe the Soul and the Spirit (Breath of Life) are one in the same, but that is easily shown to be erroneous by the fact that Jesus' Breath went up to God but His Soul was down in the grave, and God's Word is able to "divide assunder the Soul and Spirit".
Like the Jehovah's Witnesses, you are making the same hermeneutical mistake about the book of Ecclesiastes.
Solomon did not maintain everything he "searched out" under the sun (Ecc 1:13).
Similar to the bad advice from Job's 3 friends, Solomon expressed the exploration of life without regard for eternal consequences. His wisdom (from God) guided him while he explored what there was to do down here according to the natural perspective.
The paradigm of Ecclesiastes uses "under the sun" to demonstrate the logical outworking of life without an afterlife.
This is why Solomon says things like:
-let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die
-money is the answer to everything
-there is no activity in Sheol
-animals and humans all go to the same place (in death)
-everything is meaningless
-the earth remains forever
-there is nothing new
None of these are true; they are the inevitable conclusions of the natural-minded man.
You're making the same mistake Catholics make: calling into question that which God has made plain. Solomon is as clear about what happens when we die as is the nose on your face.
"without regard for eternal consequences"??? Is that why he concludes his book by saying we must fear and obey God and prepare for the eternal consequences of the Judgment?
Eating and drinking and money are indeed all that is available to the lost, which is his point.
Why lump that in with self evident truths such as there's nothing in Sheol, life apart from God is meaningless, animals and humans live by the same "Breath of Life" power of God, there's nothing new under the sun, and the meek shall inherit the Earth?
Why do you characterize as "rejectable" that which Solomon himself says he sought out as "acceptable words" in his book? I fully accept Solomon's words that "the dead know not anything" as surely as I accept we ought to "fear God and keep His commandments for this is the whole duty of man"...do you?
I believe these phrases mean that those who have died do not know current events on earth. iow, they "know not anything" of current events.
A very good question, and one that believers do need to fully understand.
The account plainly says that Samuel talked with Saul. And Saul talked with Samuel. The text quotes what Samuel said to Saul.
The account appears straightforward as the prophet Samuel actually speaking to Saul. In fact, Samuel told Saul that he would be joining Samuel the next day, which he did. I believe this is the only legitimate seance ever. God does not permit the dead to attend seances. They are demonic, as you have noted.
If they are alive in heaven, how can they not know what's going on down here? After all, "we" humans are made a "spectacle" to men and angels, but not to the "dead which are alive in heaven"? Furthermore, countless people believe their dead loved ones "watch over us" or some variation of that. I think it's a huge stretch to surmise our dead loved ones in heaven - if that is where they are - are unaware of our circumstances. After all, didn't "Samuel" know all about what was happening to Saul? We know the devil knows...and can tell his angels to go and impersonate people like "Samuel" as "familiar spirits", too.
It does say Saul talked with "Samuel" indeed because the demon spirit took the form of Samuel.
To assert that the being that materialized before Saul at the behest of a Satan worshiping witch was the dead prophet Samuel is to argue Satan has power over God's servants, which the NT flatly denies and says the exact opposite.