Why did "the rich man" have a physical body?

[Orion]

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?

 

[handy]

In all honesty, I'm not sure your question regarding hell can be answered by the story of the rich man and Lazarus. 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. It's a great story though! Especially the part about the 5 brothers not believing even if someone came back from the dead to warn them. When you think about it, Someone DID come back from the dead, and yet still many refuse to believe. That I believe is the main point of the story

But, the question of whether or not those in hell will have some kind of physical body can probably be answered yes. There are a lot of texts which indicate that all will be bodily resurrected. Even a simple text like Revelations 20:5 which states "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed." Also, when Christ speaks of hell, and He spoke of hell more often than He spoke of heaven, He always spoke in terms of physical suffering.

 

[Rick W]

I'm not so sure we can understand anything else but the physical. Christ described Heaven but we just can't grasp it. A great portion of what Christ spoke used the physical as a reference in regard to the spiritual. We can't grasp the concept of heaven. Why should it be any different for hell?
However, one thing is abundantly clear... there will be suffering in hell regardless if it's physical or spiritual. I wouldn't be so analytical so as to ignore the consequence in any case. And I don't think it'll matter a hoot to someone who winds up there anyway. That'll be the least of their worries.

 

[Free]

Just a note that, if I remember correctly, "hell" in this passage is actually Hades and not Gehenna.

 

[Vic C.]

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?

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]

I tend to see this as some sort of story as it has characteristics that would not be factual if true. People who died do not have physical bodies while they're in Hell. And I would hope that people in Hell can't be seen by those in Heaven. But that's a side issue.

 

[Drew]

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:

The sons of Leah: Reuben the firstborn of Jacob, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar and Zebulun

I think that there are reasons to believe (from the Scriptures) that the tribe of Judah represents Israel as a whole. If so, then it is easy to see how Judah maps to the rich man and the five other tribes in the Genesis 35 text map to the five brothers of the rich man in the parable.

Here is one reason why I think it is plausible to claim that Judah represents then nation of Israel as a whole - Jesus comes from the tribe of Judah and Jesus arguably assumes the destiny of the Israel by doing what the nation of Israel failed to do - solve the problem of Adam. So I think that Jesus "is Israel wrapped up in one man". If this is true, then the tribe of Judah, from whom Jesus arises, can be seen as representing the nation of Israel as a whole, supporting the assertion that the Luke 16 account is a parable about the nation of Israel, not a description of what happens to individual people when they die.

 

[Vic C.]

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:...

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:

Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Who wore fine linen and purple garments?

 

[cyberjosh]

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.

I think it is factual also (something perhaps that He actually witnessed before he became incarnate). It is not (as commentators notice) introduced as a parable nor explained as Jesus usually explained a parable.

Also as for the physical body, I suggest that it may be of the same type of our new body we recieve upon the ressurection, though ours will be glorified. Perhaps such a body is obtained immeditaely upon death, but only glorified in the ressurection, who knows... But I suggest that Jesus in his glorified body now still has the nail-holes in his hands and feet, for Jesus himself said, "And they will see the son of man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory..." (Matthew 24:30) Some do not realize how much Jesus truely emptied himself for us: He still retains his "human" (albeit glorified above all things - nay beyond even our comprehension) body, an incorruptible body as Paul speaks about.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[Drew]

Who wore fine linen and purple garments?

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.

Either way, I assume that you see the Luke 16 as a parable of some sort and not a description of the conditions of the dead.

 

[Free]

Great question Free.

Psst...that wasn't me asking that question but don't worry, I won't tell anyone else.


Just wanted to make another point based on what is being discussed. 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.

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. For example, the farmer sowing seed which falls onto different patches of ground -- the seed is representative of something else; the soil, rocks, etc. are representative of something else. But the listeners know what seed is and what happens when it is sown in poor soil versus good soil.

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.

This is further supported by Jesus' statement that the one who knows his master's will and does not do it will be beaten with many blows and the one who does not know his master's will and did things that deserved a beating will be beaten lightly (Luke 12:47-48).

 

[Drew]

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.

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).

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.

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]

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).

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."

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.

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.

It is possible that he did not do that in this particular passage but then the onus is on those who believe it is all purely symbolic to prove that it is such. I don't think there is any other parable where this is the case which weighs heavily in favor of the understanding I have given above.

 

[Drew]

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."

In the case of Paul's statement, I suggest that he may be expressing what it will be like for him, as a subject of experience, to die. Even if it it is objectively true that Paul "sleeps" for > 2000 years, for him the experience will be one of immediate transition, which is entirely true to the text. As for Moses and Elijah, I think it is plausible that these are "visions" or perhaps "exceptions" to the general principle that the dead sleep until Christ's return. As for Matt 22:31-32, this text could be read as suggesting that while Abraham and Isaac indeed "sleep", they are "safe in the mind of God" and will indeed most certainly live again.

I think that the case that the dead have full flower of conscious experience before the return of Christ is kind of like the following: A million years from now, a space traveller comes to a dead earth and digs up only one thing - a bookcase with 10 books in it. In the bookcase, there are 9 books that firmly state that there are no unicorns. On the other hand, one book asserts that unicorns do exist. The space traveller could try to make the case that humans believed in the existence of unicorns based on this one book. However, the preponderance of evidence goes the other way.

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. Besides, I think that the "tradtitional" take on this issue is heavily dependent on a historically incorrect idea of how the Hebrews viewed the nature of the human person and what they meant by terms like "spirit" and "soul". I suggest that Greek ideas have distorted the true intent.

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.

I assume that you realize that you still need to provide an account for the following text (not to mention the pile of texts that characterize the dead as "sleeping"). 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,

Obviously, we both need to give accounts for those texts that seem to be at odds with our respective positions. I think my response to the "absent from the body and present with the Lord" is strong - I do not see it as a "stretch" or distortion to argue that Paul was speaking phenomenologically when he wrote that. I admit that my other responses are less strong and are really based on claiming an interpretation of these texts which, while plausible, is really only based on making these texts fit with what I see as a preponderance of texts that suggests "little or no" life after death until Jesus returns. 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. 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,

 

[Drew]

Hello Free:

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).

I took literally 10 minutes to see what he has to say about "life after death". 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.

 

[Vic C.]

Great question Free.

Psst...that wasn't me asking that question but don't worry, I won't tell anyone else.

A total typo on my part. heh :o

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.

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.

What of Paul's claim that to be out of the body is to be with the Lord?

:-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.

2 Cor 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Me: "I want to be finished with work and be home"; that doesn't mean the moment work is done, I am immediately at home.

Just a couple of personal observations. ;-)

 

[Free]

I should first clarify that I seem to have been arguing for a physical body after death when really I only meant to argue for some sort of existence after death, apart from this physical body. Come to think of it, Luke 16 does not mention that either the rich man or Lazarus had a physical body. It simply mentions their conscious existence after death, the ability to recognize each other and that one of them was in torment.

Vic,

Yeah, I see what you're saying about 2 Cor. 5:8 and I think I agree. Paul is merely speaking of his preference for being out of the body and with Christ and not that being out of the body means one is with Christ.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Since there are two texts which have dead people talking to someone who is alive (Moses and Samuel -- Elijah was translated), it follows that at least two people have conscious existence after death. If two people have conscious after death, then it would be safe to conclude that it is highly plausible that more than two people are in a state of consicous existence although their body is still buried.

I suggest that Greek ideas have distorted the true intent.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

First, it seems that "life" and "alive" have different nuances (the word I am looking for has escaped me), just as "die" and "death" have different nuances. There is "life" as in merely this existence -- we all have life. Then there is the "life" in Christ which is this life and then some -- abundant life; life to the full, etc. Similarly, there is "death" which is physical death and "death" which is spiritual death.

This passage seems to be stating that all physically die in Adam and all will be made physically alive. It is possible that this is speaking of the state of the body, nothing more. It certainly wouldn't fit spiritual death and spiriual life as that would support either gnosticism or universalism.

BTW, you should be careful with a verse like this since "all die" and "all will be made alive" and you don't believe in the resurrection of the unrighteous, if I remember correctly (it could be someone else). Anyway, that's another topic, let's not go there. :

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.

Ah, I should have read ahead and saved myself some time.

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'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.

What do you make of the passages I listed (apart from 2 Cor. 5:8 which I will now retract as support for my argument)?

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

[wingnut]

Dear all

It appears that the icorrigibly wicked are resurrected after the Millennium, after God has destroyed Gog and Magog with fire, (Rev 20:8) and after God has destroyed Satan with fire (Ezek 28:18).

The rich man is one of those resurrected after the Millennium. Rev 20:5 "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished."

So while the saints and firstfruits are resurrected to rule with Christ at the start of the Millenium, the wicked are only resurrected for judgement. They are resurrected as mortal, physical humans on earth. Sentence is pronounced on them, and a lake of fire, like lava then consumes them. This approaching fire is what the rich man of Luke 16 saw, moments before he was finally and utterly consumed.