All articles

From Kristos Vocabulary Booster

basicallyblues wrote:

>
> There are also absurdities as to this being literal.

Interesting how you just blurt this out after first noting that one
cannot be dogmatic about it. Has it been established that this is a
parable? If it is, it is the _only_ parable in which one of the
characters is named.

There is another interesting point to be made. If events referred to in
Jesus' parables may not have been historical occurrences, there was
nothing in the details of those occurrences untrue to life. Stop for a
moment and think about that. For instance, in the events referred to
in the parable of the prodigal son, though such an event may not
actually have happened to three specific members of one family, there
is nothing in the parable contrary to the circumstances of life. There
is nothing in the parable that could not have happened, and nothing
contrary to the culture of that time. The same is true of the other
parables. If the story in Luke 16:19-31 is a parable, Lazarus and the
rich man were not actual persons and this incident did not occur.
However, if this is not an accurate illustration of the true state of
individuals following death, then it must be stated without reserve
that this parable is strongly different from all the others.

Some writers object that the point of the passage is not speak to
things eschatological. Sanders, for example, states that "so
literalistic an interpretation is by no means generally accepted in the
scholarly community, especially in light of the fact that the point of
all three parables in Luke 16 is to instruct us about the use of
wealth, not about eschatology." This seems, however, to be an example
of the common and unsubtantiated fallacy of assuming that the only
lesson to be drawn from any one parable is the central or primary one.
That assumption is seriously in need of some justification. For if
the basic teaching is like the conclusion of a syllogism, then for the
conclusion to follow as true from the premises and the syllogism to be
valid, those premises must also be true. Therefore one may draw from
the passage the premises as well as the conclusion.

>
> what kind of reasoning and by what principles of justice can it be
> maintained that simply because a man enjoyed the good things of this
> life to the full for threescore years and ten he must suffer the
> agonies of a burning hell for billions times billions of years, yes,
> for eternity?

And, as I presumed, this is the primary basis of your objection. You
first setup your presumption that there is no hell and then you read it
into the text. Yes, I know how earnst Jehovah Witnesses are about
this. We've been over this passage and the whole theological issue of
eternal damnation, not cessation, many times before.

>Even fallen, imperfect man appreciates that justice
> requires that "the punishment fit the crime," and certainly God is
> more just than man.

He is so just that you nor I have any idea just how just He really is.
Obviously that He would decree in eternity past that He would die for
our sins illustrates that our appreciation of His holy nature is
impoverished, even after having the enlightenment of the Spirit after
being regenerated.

> Abraham, David, Solomon, Joseph of Arimathea, all
> had great wealth; does that fact doom them to eternal torment?
>
Where do you come up with this stuff? You are presuming that your
initial argument has merit. It does not.
>
> Further, Jesus in his arguments with the Jewish clergy evinced a fine
> sense of logic, second to none.

Of course not. He's God.

>Would he give such a dire warning on
> the wages of sin and not even mention sin, or tell of the rewards of
> faith and obedience and not even mention them?

Do you need to tell a starving man that he should eat something? The
greater our affliction the fewer our requests. A starving man will eat
things that even a hungry man would gag on.

> Had Jesus meant to warn
> his listeners about eternal torment he certainly would have stressed
> these points; but he did nothing of the kind.
>
You presume too much. Tell me this, why did Jesus warn the Jews that
the issue of unbelief would be that they would die in their sins (Jn
8:21, 24)? Why did He specifically warn against sin against the Holy
Spirit, which has no forgiveness here or hereafter (Mk 3:28-29; Mt.
12:32)? You presume that it was His concluding point. You presume that
He had not already mentioned it. You presume that they were ignorant
of eternal damnation and need it to be explained. You presume that
eternal life doesn't really mean "never ending" for if you did believe
that eternal life was never ending, then you would have to admit that
eternal death was equally never ending. (Mt 25:46)

> Not only that, but we read that Lazarus was carried off to Abraham's
> bosom. Are all those gaining salvation reclining on Abraham's bosom?

You need to take a Jewish studies course.

> If we grant that this expression is a figure of speech, why insist
that
> what befell the rich man be taken literally? It simply does not make
> sense to take one part of the account literally and another parallel
> part figuratively.
>
Another presumption that you make is the make up of the audience to
whom Christ is speaking. The text does not indicate whether or not he
is still talking to the Pharasees (v 14 cp v 15) or whether he was
talking to the disciples (17:1 remembering that chapter and verses are
not in the original text). Therefore we cannot dogmatically
contextualize the audience and follow the paradigm of parables to
unbelievers with an explaination to His disciples when alone.

> Further note that this is the only place in the Scriptures where
> consciousness and suffering are associated with Hades.

This only reveals that you do not know your bible. Note that the
Antichrist and the false prophet are both men and they are thrown into
the Lake of Fire and a 1000 yrs later when Satan is cast into the LoF,
the scriptures (Rev 20) reveal that these two men are still alive and
still being tormented. You presume that the holy indignation of God
can be quenched by a finite death?

> Nor will it do
> to claim that before Jesus' death Hades had two compartments,

No, it has more. For Tartarus is also there. Tartarus in Greek
thought and in Jewish apocalyptic literature was viewed as a place of
punishment in the lower places of Hades. Hades, it seems, is the
temporary holding birth for all awaiting for the judgments. Peter
says that even as the angels have been consigned to Tartarus to await
the final judgment and makes the point that equally shall false
prophets reap the same punishment. And what of Gehenna? It is
clearly identified as a place of punishment for the wicked. What do
you do with it?

>one for
> the good and the other for the wicked, and that after he died for
> man's sin then the good went to heaven, for at the time Jesus spoke
> this illustration he had not yet died. That Hades is used
figuratively
> is apparent from Revelation 6:8, 9, where Hades is shown as riding
> horseback, and also at Revelation 20:14, where Hades is shown-not as
> being the lake of fire-but as being itself cast into the lake of
> fire.
>
sigh! How many misconceptions do you maintain?
>
> Besides, how could we account for Abraham's being in heaven in view
> of Jesus' words: "No man has ascended into heaven but he that
> descended from heaven, the Son of man"?

Point? You do not recognize the difference of believers in one
economy over another? When Adam is raised, will he inherit the
promises covenanted with Abraham and his seed? And what of the Church?
Are not it's believers unique in that they are hid "in Christ?"

> And did not Peter on the day
> of Pentecost point out to his listeners that David "both died and was
> buried and his tomb is among us to this day. For it was not David who
> ascended into heaven"? (John 3:13; Acts 2:29, 34 NASB) None of
> God's servants had a heavenly reward held out to them before the
> coming of Christ Jesus;

You have a firm grasp of the obvious. The problem is you don't know
what to do with it.

> that is why his apostles even after his
> resurrection were looking to an earthly kingdom.-Ps. 45:16; Acts
> 1:6-8.
>
The Jewish disciples were constantly trying to marry the two messianic
variants, that of the suffering messiah and that of the ruling messiah.
Being Jewish and being that the mystery of the Church had not yet been
revealed, of course they were looking for fulfillment of the Abramic,
Davidic, Palestinian and the New Covenants as pertaining to national
Israel.

However, as they received the Holy Spirit and were then given insight
(cp. Lk 24:45), then began to appreciate that a new economy was being
entered into. It was a transition for them. This is why Peter had to
be weaned off of Judiasm and its dietary regulations. However, the
Apostle began to understand the distinction and began to teach that the
Church did not look forward to an earthly kingdom as did the Jews with
their Millennial hope, but rather, as the Bride of Christ, it was to
become a heavenly priesthood, contradistiction to the Aaronic
priesthood. Heb 6:1a.

> besides, there is a great chasm

And just why did He include in this story of Dives and Lazarus the
detail about the great gulf fixed between those in joy and those in
torment (Luke 16:26)? Why did He say of Judas: "woe unto that man by
whom the Son of man is betrayed! good it were for that man if he had
not been born" (Matt. 26:24)? None of these statements is explicable,
save on the basis that, for better or for worse, the choices and
commitments made in this life have abiding consequences for the life to
come, and he who does not lay hold of life here will certainly not
enjoy it hereafter. And when Paul spells out the principle of
retribution (Rom. 2:5-11), and warns that we must all be made manifest
before Christ's judgment seat that each may receive the things done
in the body, whether good or evil (2 Cor. 5:10), and lays it down that
what a man sows he will also reap (Gal. 6:7), he is supporting the same
conclusion. The "Second-chance" speculations of universalist (of
whatever form) and the no further consciousness of the annihilations,
would both seem to be absolutely excluded. For the later, Christ's
statement, "it would have been better if this man hand never been born"
completely contradicts the fruition of thought of cessation upon the
point of physical death.

>
> According to the Scriptures heaven and Hades (Sheol) are at opposite
> extremes. (Ps. 139:8; Luke 10:15)

Where does your ignorance end? The final state of the wicked during
early intertestamental Judaism was anything but solidified. As Glasson
states, "As for the final fate of the wicked, there is no consistent
teaching." * So I don't understand how you can be so bold in your
statement. You need to give some attention to the recognizable stages
of conceptual changes about the underworld during the intertestamental
period to gain an understanding of the Gospels. These can be treated
in three groups

1) the continuation of the "traditional" OT view of Sheol
2) Sheol as an intermediate state
3) Sheol, Gehenna, and Tartarus as places of final punishment.

To summarize briefly, the findings in relation to this latter group
indicate Gehenna, Tartarus, and Sheol to be places of final punishment,
with Tartarus being reserved for the place of punishment for rebel
angels.** In some places the descriptive details of Sheol are similar
to those of Gehenna, in which case these concepts coalesce. Gehenna is
clearly identified as a place of punishment for the wicked. However,
apart from its identification as a place of judgment for the wicked and
the frequent mention of fire, darkness, and dread, inconsistencies
regarding its location and various descriptive details are common.
Earlier accounts locate it on earth and identify it with the literal
Valley of Hinnom*** south of Jerusalem. Others locate it in heaven in
juxtaposition to Paradise, the place of delight and reward for the
righteous, one of their delights being the spectacle of punishment of
the wicked in Gehenna.

Biblically, this valley acquired an evil reputation because of the
idolatrous practice of child sacrifices offered to Moloch there during
the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). Later, during the
reign of Josiah, he had the valley desecrated in order to prevent a
reccurrence of this abominable practice (2 Kings 23:10). Still later
the Jeremiah announced that this valley would become a place of God's
future judgment, where the Lord would recompense the kings of Judah and
the people of Jerusalem for their abominable deeds. Hence the valley
would no longer be called the "Valley of Ben Hinnom," but the "Valley
of Slaughter" (Jer. 7:30-34; 19:1-11).****

Such a historical sketch and the negative characteristics associated
with this valley, as well as its designation as a site for a future
judgment for the enemies of God, lent themselves as an ideal literal
basis for the metaphorical expression of an eschatological place of
judgment and final abode for the wicked.

Apart from these differing descriptive details, the concept of Gehenna
underwent significant changes with regard to its domain. It was first
conceived as a place of final punishment, later as an intermediate
place, and finally as a purgatory, the latest stage of development
being confined to rabbinic literature. In its earliest mention it is
reserved for apostate Jews only but is gradually expanded to include
all the wicked, Jews and Gentiles alike. The existence in Gehenna is
depicted predominantly as for one's whole being (body and soul) rather
than merely the soul. ***** All these ideas about Gehenna exist side
by side in this literature.

Even this brief survey of the background of views on Gehenna
demonstrates the advance the intertestamental literature, specifically
apocalyptic eschatology, makes on the traditional OT theology of Sheol.
The latter makes no distinction between the wicked and the righteous,
and the idea of postmortem retribution is absent apart from a few faint
hints. However, within apocalyptic eschatology the different fates of
the wicked and righteous become increasingly emphasized and their
respective dwelling places become more absolutely differentiated.
Within this development, the sudden appearance of Gehenna and its
inseparable connection with the destiny of the wicked take on a
prominent role.

This is all I have time to give you tonight on this subject. But it
should be enough to encourage you to do some more study on the subject
before you make these wildly bravado conclusions of yours.
>
___________
*T. Francis Glasson, "Apocalyptic Ideas of Judaism Contemporary with
Our Lord," p. 168. James Thayer Addison observes that "no two writers
give quite the same picture" (Life beyond Death in the Beliefs of
Mankind, p. 201.

**Read Scharen, "The Development of the Concept of Gehenna and Its Use
in the Synoptics," 160-74

***"The term "Gehenna" appears abruptly in the apocalyptic literature
of Judaism of the 2nd C B.C. Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries
relate its origin to "the Valley of Hinnom," which in the Hebrew Bible
is variously referred to as "the Valley of the Son of Hinnom," "the
Valley of the Sons of Hinnom," or simply as "the Valley of Hinnom."
Transliteration of the last of these Hebrew forms led to gaivenna in
the Septuagint or gevena in the New Testament, where it is anglicized
as the familiar "Gehenna."" [ftnt in "Gehenna in the Synoptics," Hans
Scharen, p 328.]

**** "Tophet," a term used by Isaiah

*****Cf. H. C. C. Cavallin, Life after Death: Paul's Argument for the
Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor 15, Coniectanea Biblica, NT Series
7:1, p. 212.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))