He
Hehe! I did a double take as well. Bless ya!
Adam, A Living Soul
- Thread starter Noblemen
- Start date
While I do not believe the truth is democratic ,I would agree with you .
Jesus said there was A CERTAIN rich man ..
It was not a parable and while aspects of the matter can be instructive in comparison .
The hard thing to actually accept is the hell Jesus taught about .
The man was thirsty . But had no body and so it could not be quenched .
He had a mind that could think of the past the present and the future and of his kin. He had memory he had even good desires for his kin . But all to no avail. For he did not have a body in which all these things could be resolved .
Man is a tri part being and one may debate about the soul and the spirit .
But the Word of God is a two edged sword able to divide asunder the soul from the body .
Paul prayed for a certain man whos sin was of such a sort that he prayed that his BODY would be given to satan (he died) so that his soul might be saved!
i do not fully understand that. But that too teaches much on the subject we are talking about here .
The real problem is men are rejecting the doctrine of hell. with all its torments . Even the most basic things of food and water which the "father above " has given every perfect gift to satisfy . Will be a toerment.
Because the body has perished it is neither redeemed or without corruption .
It is then unusable in any way you care to think of it .
A man then who dies in sin is separated from God for ever . and then from every good provision of God also.
and this is just the most basic and needful and 'good' needs of the body .
It gets far worse when things that are contrary to God are also wanted or lusted after .They too cant be met and the torment of those things is far worse . Its bad enough on earth!
The mercy of God is extended to all men NOW while we 'live' .If we reject the eternal mercy of God as it were while we live then all there is left is the eternal condemnation and judgment of God that is left .
There is no repentance in the grave .Meaning " as the tree leans so shall it fall and where it falls there it lies" The state we die in will be what we are forever.
IN Christ
or separated from God, cut off in perpetual and eternal darkness . "outer darkness"
in Christ
gerald
Hello @Big Moose,
I understand what you are saying. However, for me to give further thoughts of my own, will not convince anyone . However I can recommend the two links below: for both deal with the point you have raised very well.: but you have to want to read them, for like all written studies, it takes time. If you should read them, though Big Moose, I would value your input on them, or anyone else for that matter.
http://bibleunderstanding.com/richmanandlazarus_contents.htm
http://bibleunderstanding.com/richmanandlazarus.htm
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Last edited:
Hi Chris,
I read thru as much as I could, quite lengthy, it reminded me of reading an unabridged post of geralduk's.
Mr. Sellers boils it down to: since he can't justify it with other scripture, as he interprets it, then it must be satire. Jesus must have been turning the tables on the Pharisees, using their own teaching against them, showing them to be fools. This is what I gathered, anyway.
One of his main arguments is : (quoting)
"Yet, those who take this position will never go through with it. They dare not follow their position out to all its conclusions and accept all its consequences. They will not carry their idea of "historic reality" into every detail. There is always a lapse into the figurative or assumptive. Their position breaks down when they face the actual reality of the poor man being carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. They know not what to do with the statements which indicate that the rich man had eyes and a tongue and that Lazarus had a finger. They cannot fit these bodily parts in with their ideas of "disembodied spirits.""
I do not know if it is historical or parable, I don't think that matters. What does is that Jesus is teaching something, and He only used truth to teach with. Unless you can show otherwise elsewhere. Now you may be able to show where He uses a wrong view in an oppositional way to show the right or truth. But He is clear that "X" was wrong and why "Y" is right.
Jesus does not allude to this as bad doctrine or man's thinking at all.
The points Mr. Sellers presents in this quoted piece, I don't think are hard to explain at all. Angels carrying or leading a spiritual body to its proper place is not strange to me. The idea of our spiritual souls having body parts is scriptural. Visions of angels had by prophets and apostles show they have body parts. Jesus says of those separated from God and those in hell of having teeth, as in gnashing of teeth.
Most of what I found in his arguments were things he had problems explaining thru scripture and therefore assumed others had the same problem. Maybe those he discussed this with did. Back in Jesus' time, there was an entire sect of Jews who couldn't find resurrection of the body in the scriptures of what we call the Old Testament.
I do thank you for bringing this exposition to my attention, as well as others. You are always gracious in your disagreements with others which I appreciate immensely. That is why I took the time to check out the link you provided. I feel I should try to go into more detail with Mr. Sellers' piece, but time is not on my side. If you want to discuss this more, I will as much as I can.
Your brother in Christ ,
John
Hello @Big Moose,
You are a dear, kind man t0 take the time to read Otis Sellars' work on 'The Rich Man and Lazarus', for it is long. At the time that I came across it, I was looking into the subject of 'Hell,' and working my way through all references to the word itself, taking note of it's usage and context: laying aside difficult verses/passages for further consideration, and of course Luke 16:19-31 was one of those passages. I printed it off and read it off line, and found it useful, along with other works referenced.
There is one particular section which I hoped you would find, and which I will now refer to again myself, and bring to your notice, regarding whether this was in fact a true story or merely created to highlight the absurdity of Pharisaic doctrine.
Please bear with me,
Thanking you once again.
In Christ Jesus
Our Beloved Lord.
Chris
You are a dear, kind man t0 take the time to read Otis Sellars' work on 'The Rich Man and Lazarus', for it is long. At the time that I came across it, I was looking into the subject of 'Hell,' and working my way through all references to the word itself, taking note of it's usage and context: laying aside difficult verses/passages for further consideration, and of course Luke 16:19-31 was one of those passages. I printed it off and read it off line, and found it useful, along with other works referenced.
There is one particular section which I hoped you would find, and which I will now refer to again myself, and bring to your notice, regarding whether this was in fact a true story or merely created to highlight the absurdity of Pharisaic doctrine.
Please bear with me,
Thanking you once again.
In Christ Jesus
Our Beloved Lord.
Chris
Sorry Chris. I usely agree with you but I can not agree with that.
Luke 16:23........
"And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
That is either true or Jesus Christ is a liar.
Last edited:
You are correct Moose. Luke 16 is NOT a parable for many reasons one of which is the fact that Jesus uses "Proper" names in the narrative.
Also. If it is a parable, what does it then matter. Are not parables the Word of God just as is all the other information found in the Bible.
I am amazed that some will say..........."Oh, that is a parable so then there is no hell or pain ot torments".
How do we get that from a parable?
Dear Chriss. Many years ago a wonderful man blessed by God as one of the finest preachers to have ever lived said that before he gave his first sermon, he sat and talked with one of his college professors and asked him what the path was he should take.
He asked his pastor if he should go the route of the God loves us all and everyone will be saved or should he focus on the reality of hell.
This mans pastor asked him one very short question and got up and left.
The question was............."Is Luke 16 real? If it is, then YOU must preach it"!
The man who went on to become one of the worlds great men of god was............"Dr. Oliver B. Breen".
I think Chris is holding the idea that this is a satirical device used by Jesus to use their own man made doctrine against them so as to silence them, otherwise they would look foolish.
Luke 16
Hello @Major and @Big Moose,
The words of our Lord, '... there was a certain rich man', etc., is not the beginning of our Lord's lesson to the Pharisees, but the culmination. It began at verse 15: but let's begin by looking at verse 14, to what prompted our Lord's words:-
' .... ..... And the Pharisees also, who were covetous,
heard all these things: and they derided Him.
And He said unto them,
"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;
but God knoweth your hearts:
for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
The law and the prophets were until John:
since that time the kingdom of God is preached,
and every man presseth into it.
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail.
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery:
and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
There was a certain rich man ... ... "'
* There is no break in the flow of words, He goes on to give another example from the traditions of the Pharisees, in order to judge them out of their own mouth. A parable of this kind need not be true in itself, or in fact: no more than Jotham's parable of the trees speaking (Judges 9:7-15). No more than when the Pharisees, on another occasion, said 'this fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils'; and He, judging them out of their own mouth, did not contradict them, nor did He admit the truth of their words when He replied, 'If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?' (Mat. 12:24,27). No! The Lord did not argue with these traditionalists, but turned the tables upon them. It was the same here, in Luke 16. He neither denied nor admitted the truth of their tradition when He used their own teachings against themselves.
It was the same in the case of the parable of the 'pounds', a little later on, when He said, 'Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was and austere man, taking up what I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow' (Luke 19:21,22). The Lord was not, an austere and unjust man; but He uses the words which those to whom He was speaking believed to be true; and condemned them out of their own mouth.
I believe that the Lord is doing the very same thing here. The framework of the illustration is exactly what the Pharisees believed and taught. It is a powerful and telling example of one of their distinctive traditions, by which they made the teaching of God's Word of none effect. It is, of course, adapted by the Lord so as to convey His condemnation of the Pharisees. He represents the dead as speaking, but the words put into Abraham's mouth contain the sting of what was His own teaching. In verse 18, he had given an example of their practice in making void the Law of God as to marriage and divorce; and in the very next verse (10) He proceeds to give an example of their doctrine to show how their traditions made void the truth of God; using their very words as an argument against themselves; and showing, by his own words, which He puts into Abraham's mouth (vs 29-31), that all these traditions were contrary to God's truth.
They taught that the dead could go to and communicate with the living; the Lord declares that this is impossible; and that none can go 'from the dead' but by resurrection: 'neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead' (v. 31). These latter are His own words; He knew that their traditions were false, and in this very parable He corrects them. He distinctly declares that no dead person could go to the living except by resurrection{ and that if one did go it would be useless: for, there was one of the same name - Lazarus, who was raised from the dead shortly afterward, but their reply was to call a Council in which 'they determined to put Lazarus also to death,' as well as Himself (John 12:10). And when the Lord rose from the dead they again took counsel, and would not believe (Matt. 28:11-15). Thus the parable is made by the Lord to give positive teaching as well as negative; and to teach the truth as well as to correct error.
(Ref: pages 30 - in 'A Rich man and Lazarus' by Dr Bullinger)
http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/richmanandlazarus_contents.htm
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Hello @Major and @Big Moose,
The words of our Lord, '... there was a certain rich man', etc., is not the beginning of our Lord's lesson to the Pharisees, but the culmination. It began at verse 15: but let's begin by looking at verse 14, to what prompted our Lord's words:-
' .... ..... And the Pharisees also, who were covetous,
heard all these things: and they derided Him.
And He said unto them,
"Ye are they which justify yourselves before men;
but God knoweth your hearts:
for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
The law and the prophets were until John:
since that time the kingdom of God is preached,
and every man presseth into it.
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass,
than one tittle of the law to fail.
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery:
and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
There was a certain rich man ... ... "'
* There is no break in the flow of words, He goes on to give another example from the traditions of the Pharisees, in order to judge them out of their own mouth. A parable of this kind need not be true in itself, or in fact: no more than Jotham's parable of the trees speaking (Judges 9:7-15). No more than when the Pharisees, on another occasion, said 'this fellow doth not cast out devils but by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils'; and He, judging them out of their own mouth, did not contradict them, nor did He admit the truth of their words when He replied, 'If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out?' (Mat. 12:24,27). No! The Lord did not argue with these traditionalists, but turned the tables upon them. It was the same here, in Luke 16. He neither denied nor admitted the truth of their tradition when He used their own teachings against themselves.
It was the same in the case of the parable of the 'pounds', a little later on, when He said, 'Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was and austere man, taking up what I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow' (Luke 19:21,22). The Lord was not, an austere and unjust man; but He uses the words which those to whom He was speaking believed to be true; and condemned them out of their own mouth.
I believe that the Lord is doing the very same thing here. The framework of the illustration is exactly what the Pharisees believed and taught. It is a powerful and telling example of one of their distinctive traditions, by which they made the teaching of God's Word of none effect. It is, of course, adapted by the Lord so as to convey His condemnation of the Pharisees. He represents the dead as speaking, but the words put into Abraham's mouth contain the sting of what was His own teaching. In verse 18, he had given an example of their practice in making void the Law of God as to marriage and divorce; and in the very next verse (10) He proceeds to give an example of their doctrine to show how their traditions made void the truth of God; using their very words as an argument against themselves; and showing, by his own words, which He puts into Abraham's mouth (vs 29-31), that all these traditions were contrary to God's truth.
They taught that the dead could go to and communicate with the living; the Lord declares that this is impossible; and that none can go 'from the dead' but by resurrection: 'neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead' (v. 31). These latter are His own words; He knew that their traditions were false, and in this very parable He corrects them. He distinctly declares that no dead person could go to the living except by resurrection{ and that if one did go it would be useless: for, there was one of the same name - Lazarus, who was raised from the dead shortly afterward, but their reply was to call a Council in which 'they determined to put Lazarus also to death,' as well as Himself (John 12:10). And when the Lord rose from the dead they again took counsel, and would not believe (Matt. 28:11-15). Thus the parable is made by the Lord to give positive teaching as well as negative; and to teach the truth as well as to correct error.
(Ref: pages 30 - in 'A Rich man and Lazarus' by Dr Bullinger)
http://www.bibleunderstanding.com/richmanandlazarus_contents.htm
In Christ Jesus
Chris
Our Lord warned His disciples concerning the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees, using the word, 'BEWARE'. The warning was given with good reason, but christendom has not heeded the warning.
These are references to the use of the word 'beware' in the New Testament:-
Matthew 7:15
Matthew 10:17
Matthew 16:6
Matthew 16:11, 12
Mark 8:15
Mark 12:38
Luke 12:1
Luke 12:15
Luke 20:46
Acts 13:40
Philippians 3:2
Colossians 2:8
2 Peter 3:17
These are references to the use of the word 'beware' in the New Testament:-
Matthew 7:15
Matthew 10:17
Matthew 16:6
Matthew 16:11, 12
Mark 8:15
Mark 12:38
Luke 12:1
Luke 12:15
Luke 20:46
Acts 13:40
Philippians 3:2
Colossians 2:8
2 Peter 3:17
Last edited:
In this, Jesus did, by asking His question, contradict them since them answering the question would prove the contradiction. It is obvious that He disagreed with them.
As you say, He uses the words which those to whom He was speaking believed to be true; and condemned them out of their own mouth. The quote "'Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant" give us the idea that what was posed was not true, but even if it were the servant did the wrong thing. Still, one can see the truth taught here.
Luke 16
19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. --We see here that Jesus is drawing a comparison between the rich man and the Pharisees or others who hold power. They did not share their food with those in need, this was against what the law and prophets taught. Even the dogs licked his sores. Dogs were not man's best friend then. They were scavengers. So, not only did they not share food with Lazarus, but they didn't even care for him in any way, allowing dogs to violate his health.
22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. --Here we see the setting of Paradise and Hades. We all know Jesus believed and taught about these places. The existence of these places are true.
24 “Then 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.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’--Jesus teaches about the tormenting and gnashing of teeth in other places in the New Testament. He also teaches that the first in this life will be last and the last will be first.
27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”--As far as the ability to speak from Hades to Paradise, that part may not be true but just the device used to make the point. Jesus was planting the seed that most of the Pharisees would not be persuaded even by the dead rising. But some of them would be after His resurrection and the preaching which was done after the day of Pentecost. So, I believe this to be a parable in that the conversation may have never happened, but the elements of the setting and the message to the Pharisees were true. As God often did, the seed planted caused some to be saved, but others the hardness of their hearts was only made worse.
Chris, far be from me to question E.W. Bullingers teachings, However, there are several web site devoted to him and I would encourage you to read some of his other rather controversial teachings.
For every teaching that we can post a web site against Luke 16 being a literal event, we can post the same number for those teachers who claim the opposite. Then it becomes a battle of commentators. I would rather relay on what the Holy Spirit speaks to my heart.
I would say to you that First, the story is never called a parable. The other stories of Jesus' are designated as parables.
Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.
Third, this particular story does not fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.
Now here is what always confuses me. What does it matter if it is a parable???????
Whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a "real" story, it is realistic. 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.
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. I just do not understand the need to reject Luke 16 unless the rejection is rooted in the personal though that there is no such place as hell.
I believe that we are on the same page or at ;east real close to it.
Moose, it is clear to me that this passage of Scripture in Luke 16 is NOT a parable because LITERAL names are used. The same is true concerning Luke 16:18-31, which employs the use of the LITERAL names of Abraham, Lazarus, and Moses. There is NO reason for us to believe that Luke 16:18-31 is a parable, none at all. Jesus NEVER said it was a parable!
Furthermore, Jesus ALWAYS announced when He was speaking in parables, e.g., ...
Matthew 13:24 ..........
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field."
Matthew 13:31 ............
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field."
There is no mention of a "parable" in Luke 18:31, or of the word "like." There is a clear distinction between the parables Jesus told and the literal accounts. When Jesus warned the Pharisees that there would be "wailing" and "gnashing of teeth" in Hellfire, He was speaking in LITERAL terms.........
"And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:50).
As stated by MacLaren's Expositions ...........
"Properly speaking, we have here, not a parable-that is, a representation of physical facts which have to be translated into moral or religious truths-but an imaginary narrative, embodying a normal fact in a single case. "
The "gulf" is a barrier which does not allow the individuals to communicate one with another, not something that does not allow truth and light to be learned.