Jesus' Emphasis

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

I am posting the following here, as I am entertaining the topic of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus as it pertains to Jesus' emphasis in his teaching. This is not meant to be a discussion of Hell (but for full disclosure, I believe that hellfire is used as a term for consumation/annihilation).

The following provides insight into Pharisaical belief around the time of Christ. I have included a few parenthetical comments, indicated by the color red:

1. Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region, wherein the light of this world does not shine;....This region is allotted as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, [appropriate] to every one’s behavior and manners... In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared for a day afore-determined by God, in which one righteous sentence shall deservedly be passed upon all men; ....These are now indeed confined in Hades, but not in the same place wherein the unjust are confined. . . . For there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate when those pass through that are conducted down by the angels appointed over souls, they do not go the same way; but the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light,.... This place we call The Bosom of Abraham. (Now in course of time the beggar died and he was carried off by the angels to the bosom [position] of Abraham)
Now these angels that are set over these souls, drag them into the neighborhood of hell itself; who, when they are hard by [near] it, continually hear the noise of it, and do not stand clear of the hot vapor itself; but when they have a nearer view of this spectacle, as of a terrible and exceeding great prospect of fire, they are struck with a fearful expectation of a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby: and not only so, but where they see the place [or choir] of the fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos (or chasm) deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it.. (And besides all these things, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you people, so that those wanting to go over from here to you people cannot, neither may people cross over from there to us) This is the discourse concerning Hades, wherein the souls of all men are confined until a proper season.

(“An Extract out of Josephus’s Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades”)

[The Pharisees] believe that souls have an immortal vigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; on account of which doctrines, they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities gave great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also.
(Josephus, “Antiquities” 18.1.3, Whiston)

Of the two schools named first, the Pharisees are held to be the most accurate interpreters of the laws and are the leading sect. They attribute everything to fate and to God; they hold that to do right or otherwise rests mainly with men, but in every action fate has its share. Every soul, they maintain, is immortal, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment.

The Sadducees, the second order, deny fate altogether and hold that God is incapable of either committing sin or seeing it. They maintain that man has the choice of good and evil, and it rests with each individual to choose which he will follow. They deny the immortality of the soul after death and penalties in the underworld and rewards.
(“The Jewish War,” 2.8.14, Cornfeld translation)



It is with this theological backdrop that Jesus gives the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Jesus was replying to Pharisees who had sneered at him when they heard him tell his apostles that it was not possible to serve both God and riches. They disagreed, and believed that what wealth they had was a direct manifestation of God's favor, and that those who had nothing got what they deserved, either due to sinning or their parents sinning, (compare for example Jesus' disciples question concerning the man born blind: "Now as he was passing along he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?”) Also, the Pharisees believed that whatever wealth they had would translate right over into wealth in the life to come after the intermediate state. So the moral of Jesus Parable to them (as far as it impacted their thinking) was the reversal of fortune. That's the part that would have stuck out at them, and the jab about not listening to Moses and the Prophets appears to have been with a very sharp stick.

If Jesus' parable represented the "intermediate state" in any way different than the Pharisees mental religious paradigm, they would have pounced on that, and the intended message of the parable would have been totally sidetracked by debate about what the intermediate state did or did not constitute. We can be sure this would have been the case by taking notice of Paul's adroit use of the respective beliefs of the Pharisees and Sadducees at Acts 23:6-9

"Now when Paul took note that the one part was of Sadducees but the other of Pharisees, he proceeded to cry out in the San´he·drin: "Men, brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Over the hope of resurrection of the dead I am being judged." Because he said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the multitude was split. For Sadducees say there is neither resurrection nor angel nor spirit, but the Pharisees publicly declare them all. So there broke out a loud screaming, and some of the scribes of the party of the Pharisees rose and began contending fiercely, saying: "We find nothing wrong in this man; but if a spirit or an angel spoke to him--."

I doubt that many here would think that the Pharisees thinking on the intermediate state was accurate, given that the Hebrew Scriptures are all but silent on the subject, yet Jesus used their concept regarding such as a springboard to introduce a teachable moment.

Bottom line; Jesus had ample opportunity to correct the mistaken Pharisaical view on life after death. But his focus was on something entirely different. It appears that actions not academia is what is given paramount importance in Jesus ministry.

Regards, Brenden.

[Paidion]

Excellent, Brenden! That's the way I understand it, too.

[Homer]

Hi Brenden,

Interesting post.

You wrote,

Bottom line; Jesus had ample opportunity to correct the mistaken Pharisaical view on life after death. But his focus was on something entirely different. It appears that actions not academia is what is given paramount importance in Jesus ministry.

So you are thinking Jesus used a false idea about the afterlife, without bothering to correct it, in order to make a point about something else? Why would the master teacher, Jesus, find it necessary to lend credence to a false teaching when He was quite capable of making His point in other ways?

You might find this thread of interest; Matt did an excellent job on this subject:

http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... rus#p36869

Blessings, Homer

[TheEditor]

Hi Homer,

No doubt every cuture has stories that underline a particular moral teaching or dilemna. However, given the specificity of the Pharisaical views on the intermediate state, and their belief that wealth is a manifestaion of God's blessing, then one could assume they took the point. As to using a false notion as a springboard; I am not sure this is an objectionable form of teaching. Is there something that he could have used more pointedly then one's own religious paradigm to drive home a point? Perhaps. But given the thinking of the Pharisees, this worked quite well. As to the other post, I am not arguing that Jesus was making a point about the evils of wealth. However, the notion that God's blessing is tied with manifestations of it (as many of the Jewish clergy held) is untrue.

Regards, Brenden.

[TheEditor]

I should also add that I don't think this was the only point of the parable. I think it was multi-faceted.

Regards, Brenden.