I just recently did a major paper on the rich man & lazarus passage. I am 99.9% convinced it is a parable, not an actual historical account. Here is a section of my paper...
Nearly every commentator on this story mentions the fact that Lazarus is the only character given a proper name in all of Jesus’ parables. This has led some to question whether this story even fits within the genre of parable. It is argued, instead, that Lazarus and the rich men were historical figures and Jesus is simply sharing a true and meaningful story. The only other fact that seems to be mentioned in favor of this argument is that the passage never declares itself to be a parable. Since different rules of interpretation emerge for narrative and parable, it is extremely important that the nature of this passage be determined. Must parables declare themselves to be parables? Is the fact that the beggar is given a name an indicator that this is a historical case? To answer the first question, we need only to look at the rest of Luke. Many of the stories recognized as parables in Luke begin with the same form as this story. While it is true that the author of Luke has labeled some such cases as parables, it was very rare for Jesus, himself, to label his speeches as parables. In fact, in the parable of the shrewd manager (directly preceding our story), we have the exact same opening form (Luke 16:1) as we encounter in our parable. To answer the second question, it is far more likely that the beggar is given a proper name to make an important point. The name Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Eleazar which means ‘God is my help.’ It may be that the beggar is given this particular proper name in order to reinforce the theme that God is a help to the needy. In other words, that the beggar is given a proper name while his neighbor remains a generic rich man may be a way of emphasizing what kind of people are most noteworthy to God. Thus, despite the pronoun and the lack of the word ‘parable,’ it is the opinion of the vast majority of scholars that this story is, indeed, a parable.
That the story is a parable is further proven by the discovery of ancient parallels to Jesus’ story. Recent scholarship now recognizes that Jesus was not making this story up out of thin air. He was, instead, adapting and putting an interesting twist on a well-established literary motif. The earliest version of the story seems to have originated in ancient Egypt. In this story, a man named Si-Osiris is reincarnated from the realm of the dead so as to deal with an Ethiopian magician who was upstaging his Egyptian counterparts. Si-Osiris is miraclously born to a childless couple and, before he is old enough to accomplish his purpose, he and his father share an interesting dialogue after observing the funerals of a rich man and a pauper. When the father suggests his hope to have a life and death like the rich man, Si-Osiris corrects him by taking him on a tour of the realm of the dead. There it is learned that the pauper has been elevated to a high position and the rich man is left on the outside looking in. This story seems to have migrated and morphed into a variety of Jewish stories, the most famous of which involves the deaths of a rich tax collector named Bar-Ma’Jan and poor Torah scholar. The rich man is buried in style, the poor scholar left unmourned. A friend of this scholar is saddened by the contrast, but it is subsequently revealed to him in a dream that Bar-Ma’Jan is in torment while the pious friend is in bliss. While the comparisons between these stories and our parable go a long way to proving that Jesus was not referring to historical figures, the contrasts help us to discover the specific point being made by Jesus’ adaptations and twists on the popular motif.
A Question about Conditional Immortality
Re: A Question about Conditional Immortality
What then is the intent of the parable? Is it verse 31?mattrose wrote:I just recently did a major paper on the rich man & lazarus passage. I am 99.9% convinced it is a parable, not an actual historical account. Here is a section of my paper...
He will not fail nor be discouraged till He has established justice in the earth. (Isaiah 42:4)
Re: A Question about Conditional Immortality
Short answer... yes. My conclusion is that the message of the parable is that we are already rich with revelation and we should make a decision based on this light.Sean wrote:What then is the intent of the parable? Is it verse 31?
Long answer... here is my paper's conclusion:
Though this parables certainly touches on various issues, there has been much debate about what Jesus’ main intention would have been in the re-telling (and re-shaping) of this popular story. Having dismissed the idea that the primary purpose of the passage is to provide information about the after-life, we are left with two possible main messages. Is it a parable speaking against worldly wealth (which would fit well with Luke’s immediate context) or is it mainly a parable about the dangers of failing to respond to revelation with repentance (Luke’s broader context)?
A good argument can be made for placing Jesus’ emphasis on the richness of the rich man and its negative ramifications. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that Luke’s Gospel is very concerned with issues of generosity. For Luke, “Discipleship expresses itself in service to others, so it is generous with resources.” But given that both the Egyptians and Jewish parallels to this story also entail a rich man, it is hard to argue that his richness is the emphasis of either Jesus or Luke. Luke may have been more inclined to uniquely include this parable because of the rich/poor contrast, but Jesus original emphasis seems to lie more at the end of the story than in the beginning.
I would argue, along with many scholars, that the main message of the parable is that urgent repentance is the necessary response to known revelation. As mentioned above, revelation is the aspect of the original that Jesus tweaked. Only in his version is earthly revelation about the realm of the dead denied to the characters in the story. The shocking component of the parable is that no further revelation will be given to the unrepentant for the very reason that their rejection of known revelation proves that additional information would not bring about change. Jeremias summarizes this nicely in saying, “Jesus does not want to comment on the social problem nor does he intend to give teaching about the afterlife, but he relates the parable to warn men who resemble the brothers of the rich man of impending danger.”
Of course, to say that the main message of the parable is the necessity of repentance as a response to revelation is not to completely dismiss the immediate context of love for worldly wealth. After all, what previous revelation is highlighted in the story? Is it not the revealed command to aid the poor and needy? The rich man had had access to Moses and the Prophets, both of which contain commands regarding our responsibility to the needy. But these revelations had been ignored.
The parables seems particularly relevant to the contemporary American Church where many assume their favored status with God based simply on blood. The rich man, despite his obvious rejection of Moses and the Prophets, still thought of Abraham as his father. Abraham was willing to admit the genetics, but his further responses to the rich man revealed that it was not enough simply to have Jewish blood. Like the rich man, we have had access to God’s Word but, in many cases, have failed to respond with repentance and transformation. Our failure, perhaps, is never more apparent than in our neglect for the poor. Jesus’ story left his hearer (and Luke’s record of the story leaves his reader) at a point of decision not unlike that of the five remaining brothers. Will we respond to known revelation? For us and for now, the opportunity to repent and adhere to God’s will remains.
Re: A Question about Conditional Immortality
I just finished listening to the two messages on 3 views of hell and had another thought about conditional immortality.
We grew up hearing calvinist "eternal security" teaching. Some time ago, we came to the view that security is "conditional" in that life is in the Son, so he that hath the Son hath life. So if you reprobate and reject Christ you also lose your "security" since it is a relationship with Jesus that makes you secure.
Isn't conditional immortality just a continuum with conditional security? If you are secure because you are in Christ (continuing as in John 15 the vine) then your life is hidden with Christ even after physical death.
I appreciated Steve's comment about the reference to the believers who were with Christ who had died for Him, while the others were not resurrected until after the thousand years (whatever form that takes, I am also amil). Maybe this is why Paul could say that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and seemed sure that he was going to the Lord. In addition to the fact he was a believer who continued, he also died for his faith.
So much of what we were taught in the Brethren assemblies has gone out the window (dispensationalism, unconditional "eternal" security, could Jesus have sinned if He had chosen to otherwise He was not truly tempted as we are and not fully a 2nd Adam). I asked my husband about this tonight, and now he thinks I have really gone off the deep end. I will have to ask him to listen to the messages.
Paula
We grew up hearing calvinist "eternal security" teaching. Some time ago, we came to the view that security is "conditional" in that life is in the Son, so he that hath the Son hath life. So if you reprobate and reject Christ you also lose your "security" since it is a relationship with Jesus that makes you secure.
Isn't conditional immortality just a continuum with conditional security? If you are secure because you are in Christ (continuing as in John 15 the vine) then your life is hidden with Christ even after physical death.
I appreciated Steve's comment about the reference to the believers who were with Christ who had died for Him, while the others were not resurrected until after the thousand years (whatever form that takes, I am also amil). Maybe this is why Paul could say that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and seemed sure that he was going to the Lord. In addition to the fact he was a believer who continued, he also died for his faith.
So much of what we were taught in the Brethren assemblies has gone out the window (dispensationalism, unconditional "eternal" security, could Jesus have sinned if He had chosen to otherwise He was not truly tempted as we are and not fully a 2nd Adam). I asked my husband about this tonight, and now he thinks I have really gone off the deep end. I will have to ask him to listen to the messages.
Paula
Re: A Question about Conditional Immortality
Hi Paula,
I wrote the following response to a man who had asked how I could reconcile the plausibility of Universal Reconciliation with my belief in conditional security of the believer. Your questions sound a little bit like his, so I post my answer to him for your benefit (and the benefit of others who may wonder about this):
You were curious about how I combined the idea of a God who wants everyone to be saved (possibly even allowing for postmortem repentance and reconciliation) with that of conditional security of the believer. My answer would have to take the form of two possibilities:
First, on the assumption that Universalism is true:
If God will ultimately allow all men to repent, even after death, we must assume that some, if not most, men will actually do so. If this were to happen, there is the likelihood that most (or even all) men who die in unbelief might ultimately be found enjoying eternal life along with those who had believed in and lived for Christ and suffered with Him in their lifetimes. In my opinion, nothing could please God (or godly people) more than this prospect—which is the main reason that I am open to it as a possibility.
However, even in this scenario, not all men will be in equal circumstances. If, even among the faithful, some will rule over five cities and others over ten, then we can assume that those who even repented upon their deathbeds will have a position preferable to those who have not believed in God prior to seeing Him after death. "Blessed are those who, having not seen, yet believe." Thus, "salvation" refers to far more than the mere acceptance into heaven that most people think of it as. Some will reign with Christ (those who endure), and some will not. The salvation that is "conditional" and can be "lost" in this life would be that ultimate privilege of reigning with Christ—or "inheriting the kingdom."
There is another aspect to this as well, and that is that "salvation" does not refer merely to what one experiences after death. To be saved right now means to have a relationship with God and to know His grace and comfort in the circumstances of this present life. It means to have deliverance from demonic powers and the dominion of indwelling sin. Most importantly, it means pleasing God and fulfilling the purpose in this life for which He created us. Any who wait until after death to repent will have squandered their opportunity to have blessed God in their lifetimes. Since our concern as believers is that God receive His due glory in all things, we must pity those who, having only one lifetime to live for the glory of God, have neglected and wasted that one opportunity. Thus, biblical salvation, quite apart from any postmortem benefits that it confers, is a life of knowing and glorifying God and being useful in His program (the rewards in eternity are a secondary issue). It is this salvation also that a person may "lose" by apostasy.
Second, on the assumption that Universalism is not true:
If universalism is not true, then it seems the only truly biblical alternative would be the annihilation of the lost. If this is the true scenario after the judgment, then we can still suggest that God is merciful and would have preferred for all men to repent and to come to a knowledge of Him in this world. Does such a generous view of God's compassion square with the idea that salvation can be lost?
I don't see how the idea that some may lose their salvation by rebellion against God, could prove God to be any more or less merciful than the similar idea that men may fail to be saved at all by their rebellion against God.
In other words, if a certain action (rejection of Jesus) would consign certain men, who never become Christians, to annihilation, I do not see how it would be inconsistent to say that the same action (rejection of Jesus) could consign men to that same fate, even if they had once been favorable toward God. If the sea was filled with drowning men, and we were to say, "Every man who refuses to be rescued will perish," then it would seem consistent for us to say, "Any man who, having been rescued, later decides that he wants nothing to do with being rescued, and hurls himself back into the sea, will also perish."
If the concept of God's gracious disposition toward men is threatened by the idea that He may let apostates go, to their own destruction, then the concept would be equally threatened by the idea that God would allow any person to be lost at all. This is assuming, of course, that God is not a respecter of persons, and would not rather see one man than another saved.
Annihilation is a just and merciful end for rebels—whether they rebelled after pretending friendship to the King, or whether they never pretended friendship and overtly rejected Him from the beginning. In fact, the state of the former man, in scripture, appears to be worse than of the latter.
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
2 Peter 2:20-21
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
Anyway, I like the first answer above better than the second, but in either case, I really don't have a problem being open to a universalist-type view of God and still recognizing that this life is a series of qualifying tests to determine who will ultimately reign with Jesus—tests which can be either passed or failed—and that some people may actually pass the early tests, but drop out of the race and fail to pass the finals.
1 Corinthians 9:24, 26-27
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it...Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as [one who] beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
Galatians 5:7
You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
Luke 8:13
But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
Romans 11:22
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
2 Timothy 2:12
If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.
I hope this makes some sense. I think it does. Anyway, it's the best I can do with the time I have available to respond.
Blessings!
Steve
I wrote the following response to a man who had asked how I could reconcile the plausibility of Universal Reconciliation with my belief in conditional security of the believer. Your questions sound a little bit like his, so I post my answer to him for your benefit (and the benefit of others who may wonder about this):
You were curious about how I combined the idea of a God who wants everyone to be saved (possibly even allowing for postmortem repentance and reconciliation) with that of conditional security of the believer. My answer would have to take the form of two possibilities:
First, on the assumption that Universalism is true:
If God will ultimately allow all men to repent, even after death, we must assume that some, if not most, men will actually do so. If this were to happen, there is the likelihood that most (or even all) men who die in unbelief might ultimately be found enjoying eternal life along with those who had believed in and lived for Christ and suffered with Him in their lifetimes. In my opinion, nothing could please God (or godly people) more than this prospect—which is the main reason that I am open to it as a possibility.
However, even in this scenario, not all men will be in equal circumstances. If, even among the faithful, some will rule over five cities and others over ten, then we can assume that those who even repented upon their deathbeds will have a position preferable to those who have not believed in God prior to seeing Him after death. "Blessed are those who, having not seen, yet believe." Thus, "salvation" refers to far more than the mere acceptance into heaven that most people think of it as. Some will reign with Christ (those who endure), and some will not. The salvation that is "conditional" and can be "lost" in this life would be that ultimate privilege of reigning with Christ—or "inheriting the kingdom."
There is another aspect to this as well, and that is that "salvation" does not refer merely to what one experiences after death. To be saved right now means to have a relationship with God and to know His grace and comfort in the circumstances of this present life. It means to have deliverance from demonic powers and the dominion of indwelling sin. Most importantly, it means pleasing God and fulfilling the purpose in this life for which He created us. Any who wait until after death to repent will have squandered their opportunity to have blessed God in their lifetimes. Since our concern as believers is that God receive His due glory in all things, we must pity those who, having only one lifetime to live for the glory of God, have neglected and wasted that one opportunity. Thus, biblical salvation, quite apart from any postmortem benefits that it confers, is a life of knowing and glorifying God and being useful in His program (the rewards in eternity are a secondary issue). It is this salvation also that a person may "lose" by apostasy.
Second, on the assumption that Universalism is not true:
If universalism is not true, then it seems the only truly biblical alternative would be the annihilation of the lost. If this is the true scenario after the judgment, then we can still suggest that God is merciful and would have preferred for all men to repent and to come to a knowledge of Him in this world. Does such a generous view of God's compassion square with the idea that salvation can be lost?
I don't see how the idea that some may lose their salvation by rebellion against God, could prove God to be any more or less merciful than the similar idea that men may fail to be saved at all by their rebellion against God.
In other words, if a certain action (rejection of Jesus) would consign certain men, who never become Christians, to annihilation, I do not see how it would be inconsistent to say that the same action (rejection of Jesus) could consign men to that same fate, even if they had once been favorable toward God. If the sea was filled with drowning men, and we were to say, "Every man who refuses to be rescued will perish," then it would seem consistent for us to say, "Any man who, having been rescued, later decides that he wants nothing to do with being rescued, and hurls himself back into the sea, will also perish."
If the concept of God's gracious disposition toward men is threatened by the idea that He may let apostates go, to their own destruction, then the concept would be equally threatened by the idea that God would allow any person to be lost at all. This is assuming, of course, that God is not a respecter of persons, and would not rather see one man than another saved.
Annihilation is a just and merciful end for rebels—whether they rebelled after pretending friendship to the King, or whether they never pretended friendship and overtly rejected Him from the beginning. In fact, the state of the former man, in scripture, appears to be worse than of the latter.
Hebrews 10:29
Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
2 Peter 2:20-21
For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.
Anyway, I like the first answer above better than the second, but in either case, I really don't have a problem being open to a universalist-type view of God and still recognizing that this life is a series of qualifying tests to determine who will ultimately reign with Jesus—tests which can be either passed or failed—and that some people may actually pass the early tests, but drop out of the race and fail to pass the finals.
1 Corinthians 9:24, 26-27
Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it...Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as [one who] beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
Galatians 5:7
You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
Luke 8:13
But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.
Romans 11:22
Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.
2 Timothy 2:12
If we endure, We shall also reign with Him. If we deny Him, He also will deny us.
I hope this makes some sense. I think it does. Anyway, it's the best I can do with the time I have available to respond.
Blessings!
Steve
Re: A Question about Conditional Immortality
Thank you for the reply, Steve. I forgot you are teaching the GCS up in Oregon. Didn't mean to take from what little time you have. I appreciated the answer and it does answer quite a bit and give me more to meditate on.
I wonder though, "It is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgment". How that fits with universal reconciliation as they call it? I could see it fitting with annhilation. And I agree that annhilation is more Biblical it seems than eternal torment given all the warnings. Even Paul says he does not want to be adokimos (disapproved, I think KJV renders it castaway). The RC Church in the middle ages created alot of self serving doctrines like purgatory, indulgences, papal infallability, priest absolution that we don't agree Biblically. Perhaps eternal torment is another. it would be interesting to see what the history of the doctrine is. Maybe when your 3 view so of hell book comes out we will get the answer.
So don't put yourself out; you have enough to do at the GCS.
Thanks again
Paula
I wonder though, "It is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgment". How that fits with universal reconciliation as they call it? I could see it fitting with annhilation. And I agree that annhilation is more Biblical it seems than eternal torment given all the warnings. Even Paul says he does not want to be adokimos (disapproved, I think KJV renders it castaway). The RC Church in the middle ages created alot of self serving doctrines like purgatory, indulgences, papal infallability, priest absolution that we don't agree Biblically. Perhaps eternal torment is another. it would be interesting to see what the history of the doctrine is. Maybe when your 3 view so of hell book comes out we will get the answer.
So don't put yourself out; you have enough to do at the GCS.
Thanks again
Paula
Re: A Question about Conditional Immortality
Hi Paula,
You wrote:
Blessings, Homer
You wrote:
Early Christians of the 2nd century, such as Justin Martyr, held to what is called eternal punishment, predating the RC by far.The RC Church in the middle ages created alot of self serving doctrines like purgatory, indulgences, papal infallability, priest absolution that we don't agree Biblically. Perhaps eternal torment is another. it would be interesting to see what the history of the doctrine is.
Blessings, Homer