Strengthening families through biblical principles.
Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.
Read daily articles from Focus on the Family in the Marriage and Parenting Resources forum.
Great question Free. I'll be reading but am staying out of it otherwise. Not too many here liked my analysis of this parable. Handy did give a very good synopsis of this passage in another thread. 8-)Orion said:In the story of Lazarus and the rich man, . . . why is it that the rich man has a physical body in Hell, at this time? Do all people, who die outside of Christ, have physical bodies right now, while in Hell?
I think we can gather some clues as to who this rich man represents by looking at the garments this person was wearing and comparing this to a certain "class" within the religious Israel group:Drew said:I think the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable in which the rich man represents the nation of Israel. The essence of the parable is that Jesus is rebuking the nation of Israel for failing to be "a light to the world" - failing to do their part to fulfill God's intention that the nations will be blessed through Israel. I think we can gain a clue to the meaning of this parable by referring to Genesis 35:23:...
It very well may be that this story was a teaching tool or a parable, and not a description of factual information. Then again, it could be. Theologians a lot smarter than I are divided over this story. I'm of the opinion that it is factual, but I wouldn't build any hard doctrine on this particular story.
Royalty, I assume. I am not sure what you are concluding. I would vouchsafe that to see the rich man as the king of Israel is entirely consistent with seeing the Luke 16 material as a critique of the nation of Israel as whole since it is my understanding that the Hebrews viewed their king as a representative of them - the entire nation summed up in a single person as it were. I think that this notion of how a single person can represent an entire nation is connected to the compelling argument that the single person Jesus bore the destiny of Israel in respect to redressing the problem of Adam.vic C. said:Who wore fine linen and purple garments?
Psst...that wasn't me asking that question but don't worry, I won't tell anyone else.vic said:Great question Free.
True, but I think that to see this text as a description about the literal state of the dead contradicts numerous other teachings such as those of 1 Corinthians 15 which, to me, clearly states that we are "made alive" only after the second coming. I find it hard to see how to square this with Lazarus seeming to enjoy life in all its fullness right now (and having enjoyed that life for 2000 + years as of now).Free said:While Lazarus and the Rich Man very well may represent someone or something else, that in no way would mean that it cannot be about the literal state of the dead.
Fair enough, but I see no reason to think that the people to whom Jesus was talking would not be aware of the idea that national Israel was God's covenant people (a mistaken view, I would claim in light of Genesis 15). My argument is that, in the tale of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus is saying that national Israel (the rich man) has failed and that a "new" people will be the light to the world that national Israel has failed to be - namely the people of the new covenant, those circumsized in heart and not by the flesh.Free said:A point I've made regarding this passage which has never been adequately rebutted is that in every parable, that I'm aware of, Jesus uses metaphors and symbolism that are known to his hearers......There is no need to think otherwise for this particular parable (no former precedent has been set) -- while Lazarus and the Rich Man may both represent something else, Jesus used circumstances which the hearers would have understood.
And what of Moses and Elijah? What of Paul's claim that to be out of the body is to be with the Lord? And don't forget Matthew 22:31-32:Drew said:True, but I think that to see this text as a description about the literal state of the dead contradicts numerous other teachings such as those of 1 Corinthians 15 which, to me, clearly states that we are "made alive" only after the second coming. I find it hard to see how to square this with Lazarus seeming to enjoy life in all its fullness right now (and having enjoyed that life for 2000 + years as of now).
I am not so sure you understood my point. My point is that despite any symbolism Jesus used in this parable or any other, the circumstances were always real circumstances and the symbols exist as literal objects outside of the parables. He always used symbols and situations which his hearers would understand.Drew said:Fair enough, but I see no reason to think that the people to whom Jesus was talking would not be aware of the idea that national Israel was God's covenant people (a mistaken view, I would claim in light of Genesis 15). My argument is that, in the tale of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus is saying that national Israel (the rich man) has failed and that a "new" people will be the light to the world that national Israel has failed to be - namely the people of the new covenant, those circumsized in heart and not by the flesh.
So I think the people hearing this parable would be all too familiar with the symbols that Jesus uses in this parable.
Free said:And what of Moses and Elijah? What of Paul's claim that to be out of the body is to be with the Lord? And don't forget Matthew 22:31-32:
Mat 22:31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God:
Mat 22:32 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living."
A total typo on my part. heh :oFree said:Psst...that wasn't me asking that question but don't worry, I won't tell anyone else.vic said:Great question Free.
This is what caused me to bow out of the last thread on this topic. I believe Jesus did use a story told from the Babylonian Talmud that was based in part on a pagan story "adopted" by Judah during their captivity. A story they most likely they'd be well acquainted with in His time. I caught much grief suggesting that; to the point where I was told I was bordering blasphemy by even hinting that Jesus taught anything by way of using a pagan story to make a point.There is no need to think otherwise for this particular parable (no former precedent has been set) -- while Lazarus and the Rich Man may both represent something else, Jesus used circumstances which the hearers would have understood. Of course, this does not guarantee that this is the state of the dead, it certainly supports the idea that the dead have physical bodies or bodies that are able to feel physical pain.
:-D That interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:8 has been a point of contention for me. I just don't see that claim in there anywhere. I see Paul expressing a willingness to be absent from the body so he may be with the Lord, but what I don't read is any immediacy.What of Paul's claim that to be out of the body is to be with the Lord?
I would be curious as to what the story does say. I won't comment on that idea anymore since I am in the dark on that one but it is interesting.vic said:I believe Jesus did use a story told from the Babylonian Talmud that was based in part on a pagan story "adopted" by Judah during their captivity. A story they most likely they'd be well acquainted with in His time.
Well, why would Jesus have to use a pagan story when he could have made up a perfectly good Christian one. : Truth is truth whether it is found in a pagan story or Holy Scripture.vic said:I caught much grief suggesting that; to the point where I was told I was bordering blasphemy by even hinting that Jesus taught anything by way of using a pagan story to make a point.
Even if they are outnumbered, if just one text exists that explicity shows someone who died and is buried out and about, then the other texts must take this one text into account. I'm sure you would agree that numbers do not determine the truth of the matter, although they can lend support.Drew said:We do indeed have some texts whose "literal reading" suggests conscious existence after death such as the stuff about Elijah and Moses. But I think it can be shown that they are significantly outnumbered by those which suggest the dead have little or no conscious experience.
This of course begs the question as to why the Bible was written in a Hellenized Jewish culture. The writer of Hebrews sure seems to borrow from Platonism. I have seen this argument used before an it's implication is that the Greek ideas were not what was intended but I don't think one can support such an assertion. There simply seems to be no basis to say that since Greek thought may have influenced such an understanding that therefore it is likely not the true understanding.Drew said:I suggest that Greek ideas have distorted the true intent.
Is it not just as familial, and I would argue even moreso, to say all are alive now in some form or another as a family? For those of the past to be in a sort of sleep or state in which there is complete disconnect from the present state and the future state, brings discontinuity into the family.Drew said:I think that there is another reason to think that the dead sleep and this has to do with our collective dismissal of the notion that we, the people of God, are a family. I think it makes much more sense to think that God will call us forth at the same time - as a community - rather than "one by one" as we die. Although this may sound vague, I think that the idea of us all being called forth to "life after life" at the same time makes for a much more coherent story, one that honours our "corporateness" - an idea that we may have lost in post-enlightenment times.
This is where it gets a little tricky and I can only make some assumptions based on what I have read in Scripture; I do not have the knowledge of the Greek to either support or disprove my assumptions.Drew said:In order for your position to hold together, you need to explain how the following text fits in with the "the dead have full conscious experience right now".
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come,
Ah, I should have read ahead and saved myself some time.Drew said:But I would like to know - what sense do you make of the 1 Cor 15 text? It would seem that your only option is to claim that "being made alive" means to be given a body.
I'm not sure I follow you here as I am not seeing any issue or inconsistency. Unless you are suggesting that it makes the resurrection of the physical body next to useless....something to think about.Drew said:This seems awfully shaky to me since the essence of "being alive" seems to map to conscious experience and thought - and these things are already present for Lazarus (and the rich man) if we are to take the Luke 16 account literally,
I actually downloaded his podcasts from iTunes a couple months ago. I enjoyed what he said so I bought 2 or 3 of his books, which I have not had the time to read yet.Drew said:I noted from another thread that you read NT Wright. I am starting to do so myself and I am very impressed with him generally (although I find him to be very cryptic at times).
That is interesting. My full position is actually similar. I am not convinced that believers go right to heaven, as is commonly taught. I believe that, as Luke 16 states, the dead are in Hades, a temporary abode of the dead where they consciously await the resurrection at which point they will join with those who are alive and meet up with Christ. It is a peaceful rest from this life but not the full enojyment that awaits. I am not sure that I have been all that clear about it in this thread.Drew said:My sense of his position is this: people do not "sleep" after death but nor do they enjoy the full flower of conscious experience that most Christians believe that they do. Wright seems to believe that we need to think of a separate "death as a state" phase between our physical death and the resurrection that will take place in the future. So, to perhaps oversimplify, he seems to adopt a position between my "we sleep after death till resurrection" position and the position that you seem to be adovocating based on what you seem to be saying about Luke 16.