What's your view on Hell?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Thanks Brother Esaias,

In regard to what Nicodemus said, that it wasn’t normal for Jesus to be specific (naming names) in parables. Do you believe that Jesus was rebuking Caiaphas because of His mistreatment of Lazarus?

I think it is earlier in Matthew that Jesus told his disciples (when He was referring to the leaven of the Pharisees) that He would from now on speak in parables when the Pharisees were listening. A sort of code speak if you will. However, as Nicodemus points out, there is a lot of detail in this parable that is normally not present. Maybe it was personal for Jesus?

Regarding the use of a personal name in a parable: there is no rule that says one cannot use a personal name in a parable. Also, the fact Lazarus was resurrected shortly afterwards strongly indicates the parable was meant to be a timely even prophetic lesson about the realities surrounding the religious authorities of the day.

But more importantly, nobody who asserts this was a literal history actually believes it:


"...they do not believe in sitting in Abraham's lap literally, or literal flames, literal communication between the tormented and the refreshed, literal physical body parts (eyes, tongue, finger, etc), physical chasms, etc etc etc. So, even though people often claim it is a literal historical account, they turn right around and deny its literalness!"

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Lazarus in the parable is Lazarus, Mary and Martha's brother. (Very likely he is also known as Simon the leper.)

The rich man is the high priest Caiaphas, who had five brothers-in-law who also previously served as priests.

None of them would get right with God even if Lazarus rose from the dead. When Lazarus did in fact rise from the dead, Caiaphas and the "chief priests" sought to have him (Lazarus) killed to stop the spread of his testimony, which was causing people to flock to Jesus.

...

I believe the two Lazaruses are the same person, the connection to coming back from the dead, the rich man's brothers not believing even if Lazarus came back from the dead, and the historical events concerning Lazarus coming back from the dead and the rulers, priests, etc still not believing and getting right with God... it all fits.

Plus, there is a strong indication Simon the Leper was an epithet (other name) for Lazarus, and Lazarus in the story was a leper as well.

On the other hand, if this is a literal account of historical events, it creates insurmountable contradictions with the rest of Scripture, especially those areas of the Bible containing plain, unambiguous doctrinal teaching. Additionally, everyone who says it is a literal history don't actually take it that way, they do not believe in sitting in Abraham's lap literally, or literal flames, literal communication between the tormented and the refreshed, literal physical body parts (eyes, tongue, finger, etc), physical chasms, etc etc etc. So, even though people often claim it is a literal historical account, they turn right around and deny its literalness!

You have good points.

A few things,

* The "devouring fire" or "everlasting fire" is not referring to the lake of fire, but in your reasoning you are connecting them. Who can live with the everlasting fire? asks the sinners in Zion and the godless ones (see the sentences right before in that verse). This is definitely poetry in the prophecy. If that refers to the lake of fire then you say the righteous, the one that can, is going to be walking around in the lake of fire without getting consumed? Isn't the just going to be in peace in the presence of God? The righteous do not dwell in the lake of fire. Those descriptions are definitely referring to God himself, but as the Mighty Judge pouring his wrath on the land of Zion.


* Regarding Lazarus, if I understand correctly, you are saying the story of Lazarus told by Jesus was not real to life. Can you show another parable of Jesus that is based on elements that are not real to life? It would be such an uncommon thing.

* "sleep" describing the dead could be simply an euphemism, and not a theological concept. The Bible writers used euphemisms.

John 11:11-14 (NKJV) 11 These things He said, and after that He said to them, "Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up."
12 Then His disciples said, "Lord, if he sleeps he will get well." 13 However, Jesus spoke of his death, but they thought that He was speaking about taking rest in sleep.
14 Then Jesus said to them plainly, "Lazarus is dead.

Could you please also explain these verses:

Revelation 6:9-11 (NKJV) 9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

Matthew 10:28 (NKJV) 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 23:43 (NKJV) 43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Thanks Brother Esaias,

In regard to what Nicodemus said, that it wasn’t normal for Jesus to be specific (naming names) in parables. Do you believe that Jesus was rebuking Caiaphas because of His mistreatment of Lazarus?

I think it is earlier in Matthew that Jesus told his disciples (when He was referring to the leaven of the Pharisees) that He would from now on speak in parables when the Pharisees were listening. A sort of code speak if you will. However, as Nicodemus points out, there is a lot of detail in this parable that is normally not present. Maybe it was personal for Jesus?

Lazarus in the Hebrew means Eleazar.

Eleazar was the steward of Abrahams house.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by coksiw

You have good points.

A few things,

* The "devouring fire" or "everlasting fire" is not referring to the lake of fire, but in your reasoning you are connecting them. Who can live with the everlasting fire? asks the sinners in Zion and the godless ones (see the sentences right before in that verse). This is definitely poetry in the prophecy. If that refers to the lake of fire then you say the righteous, the one that can, is going to be walking around in the lake of fire without getting consumed? Isn't the just going to be in peace in the presence of God? The righteous do not dwell in the lake of fire. Those descriptions are definitely referring to God himself, but as the Mighty Judge pouring his wrath on the land of Zion.

The sinners are afraid and ask "Who will dwell with everlasting burnings?" The very next series of statements give the answer: the righteous. Thus, the righteous are the ones who will dwell in the devouring (consuming) fire. Our God is a consuming fire. Thus, it is the righteous who will dwell (abide, continue, live) in and with the consuming fire who is God. The sinners of course will not. They are not listed as being able to dwell in the fire. God is a consuming fire. What does He consume? Sin, wickedness, the unrighteous. They perish and will not be able to abide. Only the righteous will.

The "lake of fire" is a symbol in a vision. It represents the destruction of the wicked by God. Being cast into the lake of burning sulphur is symbolic of being destroyed by God. The righteous are not imperilled by that judgment. They are safe with God.

* Regarding Lazarus, if I understand correctly, you are saying the story of Lazarus told by Jesus was not real to life. Can you show another parable of Jesus that is based on elements that are not real to life? It would be such an uncommon thing.

Not sure what you mean by "not real to life"? A parable is by definition a fictitious story meant to illustrate one or more concepts. If you believe the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a description of actual events that actually happened, then you believe righteous dead people actually go and sit in Abraham's lap, have tongues, can see the wicked who suffer from actual thirst, can talk to the wicked while they suffer, have actual bodies other than the bodies they have in the grave (at the same time!), etc. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is either utterly inconsistent with both reason and the rest of Scripture, not to mention it is inconsistent with the beliefs of those who try to use the story to support their belief in a conscious intermediate state, OR it is a parable meant to illustrate certain concepts. It uses themes common to Pharisee belief about the afterlife and the intermediate state to make a counterpoint to the standard Pharisee assumption about who they were and where they were going.

* "sleep" describing the dead could be simply an euphemism, and not a theological concept. The Bible writers used euphemisms.

It is a metaphor, not a euphemism. The metaphor is used because of the similiarities between physical death and sleeping. It is theological because theology is the study of God's word, and God's word uses the term sleep to communicate truth about death. If we use God's terms, we will be more likely to grasp the truths He is trying to communicate.

Could you please also explain these verses:

Revelation 6:9-11 (NKJV) 9 When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. 10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" 11 Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.

I believe I already had explained this verse in a previous conversation with you:

It's a vision. Are the souls literally stuck underneath a literal altar? During a sacrifice the blood of the animal was poured out at the base of the altar. These martyrs gave themselves as willing sacrifices if you will for the gospel. Abel's blood "cried out to God" in Genesis when he was murdered. Was literal blood vocally screaming from the ground? No, rather his death demanded justice and God was aware of it. The life (soul) is in the blood. So the souls under the altar represent the martyrs' deaths for God demanding justice, and God is fully aware of it and in due time will avenge them.
(see http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...4&postcount=99 )

Matthew 10:28 (NKJV) 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

If the body is killed, you will rise again. But if God destroys both body and soul in the lake of fire, there is no coming back.

Man can only kill the body, but cannot deprive anyone of eternal life. God however can kill permanently, for ever.

Interestingly, God is said to destroy BOTH body and soul in hell. Thus, the truth of a physical resurrection as well as the truth that nobody is destroyed in hell until judgment day are established.

The body is the physical body, the soul is the life, the person, the whole human entity. The person (soul) will live again no matter what man does to the body. But no soul will live if God destroys the person in the second death.

Luke 23:43 (NKJV) 43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Just move the comma over one word, from before "today" to after "today". The commas after all are not inspired but added by translators.

But let us leave the comma there anyway. That very day the thief would be with Jesus in "paradise" (the Greek term for Eden, in fact). How would that be possible since Jesus would not rise from the dead that day? How can Jesus effect salvation without rising from the dead? Paul says if Jesus is not raised then our faith is in vain, we have no hope. So the salvation and redemption was not completed until not only had Jesus died, but had also rose again from the dead. Moreover, where was Jesus that day? In heaven? In Abraham's lap? Or on a cross? And then taken down and put into a grave?

Where is Paradise? In heaven? some 50 days after Jesus said that to the thief, Peter said this:

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
(Act 2:31-35)

Notice, 50 days after the cross, Peter affirms that David "is not ascended into the heavens". And this is in connection with the soul not being left in hell. So 50 days after the cross David is still not in heaven, yet the thief is? The only human to ascend into the heavens is Jesus Christ, the firstfruits of the resurrection.

So what is Jesus saying here? What is in Paradise (Eden)? The Tree of Life. Jesus was hanging on a "tree" (the cross), pouring out His blood to give life to all who would believe. The cross is the real Tree of Life. The thief was there with Jesus while He was dying, and as He died. The thief was in the very presence of the genuine Tree of Life. That is to say, in the real true Paradise of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

Lazarus in the Hebrew means Eleazar.

Eleazar was the steward of Abrahams house.

The Pharisees claimed to be Abraham's heirs. But they were going to lose out and be replaced by a class of people whom they believed to be under a curse and cut off from God. In their view, they themselves represent Isaac and Eleazar/Lazarus (Abraham's servant) would represent the heathen and "this people which know not the law".

But in reality, just as in the parable, Eleazar/Lazarus gets to recline with Abraham while the wealthy "heir" suffers by being cut off and kept out.

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Not sure what you mean by "not real to life"? A parable is by definition a fictitious story meant to illustrate one or more concepts. If you believe the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a description of actual events that actually happened, then you believe righteous dead people actually go and sit in Abraham's lap, have tongues, can see the wicked who suffer from actual thirst, can talk to the wicked while they suffer, have actual bodies other than the bodies they have in the grave (at the same time!), etc. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is either utterly inconsistent with both reason and the rest of Scripture, not to mention it is inconsistent with the beliefs of those who try to use the story to support their belief in a conscious intermediate state, OR it is a parable meant to illustrate certain concepts. It uses themes common to Pharisee belief about the afterlife and the intermediate state to make a counterpoint to the standard Pharisee assumption about who they were and where they were going.

"Real to life" means that the stories in the parable are obviously fiction but the things, persons, and places inside the story are elements extracted from real life: e.g., you don't see Jesus using animals talking in parables, because that's not a thing in real life, you don't see Jesus using trees dancing, or people flying to stars, for the same reason.
Jesus's stories never had things, persons or places, or theological truths that were not from real life. If Hades had not been a real life element, with a separation between the just and the unjust, then it would have not been in Jesus's story.

It is a metaphor, not a euphemism. The metaphor is used because of the similiarities between physical death and sleeping. It is theological because theology is the study of God's word, and God's word uses the term sleep to communicate truth about death. If we use God's terms, we will be more likely to grasp the truths He is trying to communicate.

You are right, figures of speech are there with a purpose to communicate a thought via comparison in most cases. You can see it as a metaphor, however, it wouldn't still be what it is really happening. The verse I posted above is clearly an euphemism. Lazarus wasn't sleeping, and Jesus didn't wake up Lazarus, he brought back to life with a command.

Theology is not just the mere study of the Scripture, but the discipline of extracting truths, through studying, from the Scriptures.
What I refer as theological concepts is theologically loaded or profound terms in their context, e.g. grace, salvation, etc... I don't see how "sleep" it is figuratively referring to being dead is a theologically profound term. Jesus himself had to clarify to the disciples that Lazarus was dead without extra comments regarding his "truly sleeping" condition.

I believe I already had explained this verse in a previous conversation with you:

It's a vision. Are the souls literally stuck underneath a literal altar? During a sacrifice the blood of the animal was poured out at the base of the altar. These martyrs gave themselves as willing sacrifices if you will for the gospel. Abel's blood "cried out to God" in Genesis when he was murdered. Was literal blood vocally screaming from the ground? No, rather his death demanded justice and God was aware of it. The life (soul) is in the blood. So the souls under the altar represent the martyrs' deaths for God demanding justice, and God is fully aware of it and in due time will avenge them.
(see http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...4&postcount=99 )

Revelation is a book full of elements that are not real to life mixed concepts extracted from real life. Since souls are elements from real life, and also pretty much everything in that passage is, it is sensible to infer that the event described is the imaginary thing, not the elements part of it.

The example of Abel is not equal to the passage in Rev, and not a good comparison. The blood crying out is definitely a personification which is not real to life.

If the body is killed, you will rise again. But if God destroys both body and soul in the lake of fire, there is no coming back.

Man can only kill the body, but cannot deprive anyone of eternal life. God however can kill permanently, for ever.

Interestingly, God is said to destroy BOTH body and soul in hell. Thus, the truth of a physical resurrection as well as the truth that nobody is destroyed in hell until judgment day are established.

The body is the physical body, the soul is the life, the person, the whole human entity. The person (soul) will live again no matter what man does to the body. But no soul will live if God destroys the person in the second death.

According to your statement, we can imply that if you kill the body, then there is no "whole human entity" anymore, and therefore, there is no "soul". Jesus is separating them as something that remains after death.

You are right, nobody is destroyed in Hades. The rich man was being tormented, not eternally destroyed.

Just move the comma over one word, from before "today" to after "today". The commas after all are not inspired but added by translators.

But let us leave the comma there anyway. That very day the thief would be with Jesus in "paradise" (the Greek term for Eden, in fact). How would that be possible since Jesus would not rise from the dead that day? How can Jesus effect salvation without rising from the dead? Paul says if Jesus is not raised then our faith is in vain, we have no hope. So the salvation and redemption was not completed until not only had Jesus died, but had also rose again from the dead. Moreover, where was Jesus that day? In heaven? In Abraham's lap? Or on a cross? And then taken down and put into a grave?

Moving the comma would make the phrase a strange phrase as it would make "today" a totally irrelevant word in the conversation. Jesus had already said "Assuredly" (or verily verily). It could be argued that it is to emphasize, however, he didn't use "I say to you today" in any other moment to put emphasis, so it wasn't his style of conversation to achieve that. In the closest phrase in another passage, "today" actually carries a significant meaning in the sentence:
Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night

Leaving the comma where it is, does make the word "today" have a much better sense in the context. It is in response to the wish of the thief to "be remembered" in the future when Jesus came in his kingdom, which Jesus told the good news that won't be a future event for him to be with Jesus, but that "today" the thief will be counted with the righteous.

Therefore, leaving the comma where it is, makes more sense in the context.

Jesus and the thief went to the same place where the rest of the Old Testament saints went: to Hades, but the side where the just was. But Jesus didn't stay there because there was no an unpaid accusation against Him preventing him from reaching heaven, instead He took the righteous saints of the OT up to "paradise" because their sins were paid at the cross. They were justified by believing in a future Savior.

Where is Paradise? In heaven? some 50 days after Jesus said that to the thief, Peter said this:

He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool.
(Act 2:31-35)

Notice, 50 days after the cross, Peter affirms that David "is not ascended into the heavens". And this is in connection with the soul not being left in hell. So 50 days after the cross David is still not in heaven, yet the thief is? The only human to ascend into the heavens is Jesus Christ, the firstfruits of the resurrection.

So what is Jesus saying here? What is in Paradise (Eden)? The Tree of Life. Jesus was hanging on a "tree" (the cross), pouring out His blood to give life to all who would believe. The cross is the real Tree of Life. The thief was there with Jesus while He was dying, and as He died. The thief was in the very presence of the genuine Tree of Life. That is to say, in the real true Paradise of God.

Paradise is the place of rest for the justified in Christ while they await the resurrection. Since it is where Jesus is, we can infer it is in heaven. Paul also says it is in the third heaven.

Philippians 1:23 (NKJV) 23 For I am hard-pressed between the two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.

Luke 23:43 (NKJV) 43 And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise."

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 (NKJV) 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago—whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows—such a one was caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I know such a man—whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows— 4 how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

The context of the Psalm is the LORD putting the Lord in place of authority ruling over the land of the living and the dominion of Satan.

David is not in heaven crowned as king, nor with a living body to rule over the land of the living. It would be odd to think that a soul without a body is ruling over the land of the living. The David ascending to heaven is definitely referring to the possibility of David as a living human ascending to heaven, which is what Jesus did.

[Nicodemus1968]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The Pharisees claimed to be Abraham's heirs. But they were going to lose out and be replaced by a class of people whom they believed to be under a curse and cut off from God. In their view, they themselves represent Isaac and Eleazar/Lazarus (Abraham's servant) would represent the heathen and "this people which know not the law".

But in reality, just as in the parable, Eleazar/Lazarus gets to recline with Abraham while the wealthy "heir" suffers by being cut off and kept out.

The rich man had 5 brethren, who do they represent?

[1 God]

Excellent question

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

The rich man had 5 brethren, who do they represent?

To make the point, that the Pharisees did not believe Moses and the prophets, neither would they believe if they witnessed the resurrected Christ… whom Moses and the prophets point to.

Just some scattered thoughts. I need sleep. Or coffee.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Nicodemus1968

The rich man had 5 brethren, who do they represent?

The living, unbelievers, especially the Jews?