Hell - Justice vs Persuasion

[NevadaDad]

BTW the story of the Rich man is not necessarily about hell, it could be about the jewish nation rejecting Christ and looking to Father Abraham for help.

I will grant that the above is a possible explanation, but it seems extremely implausible for several reasons:

• 1. Christ's parables or metaphors elsewhere in the Gospels are delivered by Him in a style where it is either obviously a parable - or in those few instances when there was any possibility they would be misunderstood - the meaning is provided. The parable of the Wheat and the Tares is one such example. Christ is very deliberate in explaining the symbolism. John 2:19 is another such place where Christ's symbolic language could be (and indeed was) misunderstood when He says "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews misunderstood the symbolism and used it to falsely accuse Christ at his trial before the High Priest. However, John 2:21 is provided to clarify that Christ was speaking of his body, not the literal Jewish temple. If the Rich Man and Lazarus is truly a parable, its interpretation is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than that of the Wheat and the Tares. Yet the bible provides no clue to its meaning - unlike the passage in John 2:19-21 or the parable of the Wheat and the Tares. It seems more likely to me that the reason no explanation of the symbolism is provided is precisely because it is not a parable.
  
  2. There is not a single other parable of Christ's in the gospels where named individuals and places are employed. Parables use words such as "there was a certain man" "faraway country" "the Kingdom of God is like unto a..." and similar language where it is fairly obvious that symbolism is being used and the audience is being provided with an analogy rather than actual events. All of that is absent in the Rich Man and Lazarus. We have the use of Abraham and Lazarus - two proper names. This is unprecedented in any other parable. We have great specificity in the details of the Rich Man's family in that he had 5 other brothers...not 3, not "many", not "others", but "five." Again, this is very atypical if truly a parable and not meant to be literal.
  
  3. Nowhere in scripture does Christ employ hyperbole, yet here the words "torment" "flame" "just a drop of water" and other such "over the top" verbiage is used, if it is indeed symbolic. This simply does not seems consistent with a description of the Jewish nation being embarrassed or humiliated at being rejected by God in favor of the Gentiles. Sure, they would be humiliated and "lose face," but to compare this to asking for a single drop of water while being tormented endlessly in a flame just does not strike me as suitably quid pro quo, if indeed it is an analogy.
  
  4. If the passage is a parable and symbolic of Jewish rejection as you suggest, what would be the meaning of the five brothers? It seems here that Christ was speaking of the rejection of an individual, not a nation. But if, as you suggest, the Rich Man is symbolic of the Jewish nation, what are we to make of the Rich Man’s brothers? Who do they symbolize? Other nations? If so, why 5? And, what about the chasm in verse 26? What does it symbolize?
  
  5. The passage seems to clearly indicate that the five brothers still have a chance, but that no “extraordinary” opportunity will be provided to them other than what is available to anyone else. In other words, they have the scriptures – they will not be given a miraculous sign such as someone rising from the dead. If not meant to be taken literally that there are five other brothers, still alive and able to choose their destiny, what does this symbolize? What are they choosing? Who are they? What are they supposed to repent from (v 30)?

These, to me, are important questions that one must be prepared to answer before concluding that the story given by Christ is merely symbolic as opposed to literal. I have read a number of different perspectives on why this passage “cannot be” literal and must instead by symbolic, but I am afraid that so far, none of them has been compelling enough to convince me otherwise. Frankly, there is nothing in the passage itself that would logically or necessarily require one to view it symbolically in order to harmonize with the rest of the scriptures. In fact, I would contend that just the opposite is true.

[steve7150]

. Nowhere in scripture does Christ employ hyperbole, yet here the words "torment" "flame" "just a drop of water" and other such "over the top" verbiage is used, if it is indeed symbolic. This simply does not seems consistent with a description of the Jewish nation being embarrassed or humiliated at being rejected by God in favor of the Gentiles. Sure, they would be humiliated and "lose face," but to compare this to asking for a single drop of water while being tormented endlessly in a flame just does not strike me as suitably quid pro quo, if indeed it is an analogy.

4. If the passage is a parable and symbolic of Jewish rejection as you suggest, what would be the meaning of the five brothers? It seems here that Christ was speaking of the rejection of an individual, not a nation. But if, as you suggest, the Rich Man is symbolic of the Jewish nation, what are we to make of the Rich Man’s brothers? Who do they symbolize? Other nations? If so, why 5? And, what about the chasm in verse 26? What does it symbolize?





NevadaDad,
If Christ never used hyperbole are you prepared to cut off your hand or gauge your eye out if they cause you to sin? I think he often used hyperbole as his audience was familiar with this literary technique. Even if this is indeed a parable it still can be speaking about a literal hell and at face value it sounds like eternal hell and if i believed in that i would use this to validate that belief. However i must confess that i look at this with a pre-supposition that hell and evil are temporal and are ultimately destroyed therefore i see other possibilities.
I think Jesus often employes a theme which is the reversal of fortunes contrasting supposed material blessings in this life which to the jews showed God's favor with the poor beggar Lazarus getting the real wealth or the treasures in heaven that Jesus told us really matter. In Luke 15.3 it says "He spoke this parable unto them" and Jesus continues speaking to the Pharisees about various parables. They were the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son, which show the love and grace God has to sinners. The last two are directed toward Jesus accusers condemning them for their pride , the unjust steward and the rich man. The last one is the most personal and direct and therefore sounds the least like a parable because it is in fact directed at the Pharisees.
Annas the real high priest did have five brothers, and also the tribe of Judah had five brothers from Leah. The jewish nation thought that their linage from Abraham gave them favored status with God but Jesus was saying not only was their to be a reversal of fortunes (destruction of Jerusalem) but this belief in of itself would turn out to be a chasm.
If this were a literal story then folks in heaven can speak with people in hell and look across the impassable gulf and see their loved ones in indescribable torment. Fathers will see daughters, mothers see their sons, folks see their relatives pleading for cool water to help ease their anguish. If this is literal then we must believe one drop of water can impact the pain of people in eternal hell.
I think we see symbolisms in this parable like "flame"is used without "fire", the only time in the bible this happens therefore i think flame here is symbolic of "light" and specifically the light that Christ is our Savior , not Father Abraham. Do people in hell really look to Abraham for salvation? I think this is yet again a parable about reversal of fortunes.

[Todd]

In my opinion, to take the story of Lazarus and the Rich man as a historical, literal event is to believe that God tortures helpless people. All of society knows that torture is wrong, wrong, wrong - this knowledge is placed in our hearts by God's Holy Spirit (the Law written on our hearts). God does no wrong; therefore, he does not torture, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Todd

[RV]

If this were a literal story then folks in heaven can speak with people in hell and look across the impassable gulf and see their loved ones in indescribable torment. Fathers will see daughters, mothers see their sons, folks see their relatives pleading for cool water to help ease their anguish. If this is literal then we must believe one drop of water can impact the pain of people in eternal hell.

Very good point!

In my opinion, to take the story of Lazarus and the Rich man as a historical, literal event is to believe that God tortures helpless people. All of society knows that torture is wrong, wrong, wrong - this knowledge is placed in our hearts by God's Holy Spirit (the Law written on our hearts). God does no wrong; therefore, he does not torture, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Expand on what I underlined a little more Todd would you?

The helpless people part.

[Todd]

In my opinion, to take the story of Lazarus and the Rich man as a historical, literal event is to believe that God tortures helpless people. All of society knows that torture is wrong, wrong, wrong - this knowledge is placed in our hearts by God's Holy Spirit (the Law written on our hearts). God does no wrong; therefore, he does not torture, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

Expand on what I underlined a little more Todd would you?

The helpless people part.

RV,

The traditional view of hell, which is in part derived by the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, has the "unsaved" dwelling in torment (torture) forever and ever without any hope of escape - these people are helpless once they are there. It is my opinion that God would not allow such a thing to happen simply because torture - even for a moment - is immoral. God, as seen through His Son, Jesus, is merciful and loving and says that we should do good to our enemies.

For this reason I don't believe the traditional view, the conditional immortality view, or the Christian Universalist view because all three include at least some post-death torment (torture). There is another alternative which was first called Ultra-Universalim back in the 19th Century. Here are some of the basic principals of this view.

1. There is no post-death punishment for anyone. New Testament Biblical references to "hell" are metaphors for the punishment or consequences of one's sins on his life prior to his physical death. A good example of God pouring out His wrath in this life is found in Rom 1:18-32. Also, post-death punishment is not found in the Old Testament; all of God's warnings and punishments were for the present life.
2. Eternal Life is literally translated "the life of the age" and refers to the spiritually blessed life enjoyed by those who place their faith in Christ (John 17:3). Eternal Life is often contrasted with perished, destroyed, or dead which refer to one who has been overcome in sin and is suffering the consequences thereof.
3. At the resurrection, the dead are changed, and all are made subject to Christ immediately as they are raised from the dead (see Rom 8:18-23, 1 Cor 15:25-28, Eph 1:9-10). The "last enemy" is death; once death is destroyed, God has no enemies. Christ's death gave Him the power and authority to subject all things to Himself.

Todd

[Paidion]

If the story of the rich man and Lazarus is the history of an actual event, does it not seem odd that the rich man goes to the place of suffering simply because he is rich, and Lazarus goes to the place of comfort simply because he is a poor beggar? This is how "Abraham" in the story explained it to the rich man:

... Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.
Luke 16:25 ESV

Is this the criterion for going to heaven or hell? Those who are rich and have received "good" things in life go to hell, but those who are poor and have received "bad" things in life, go to heaven. It doesn't matter how you've lived your life. It doesn't matter whether or not you have become a disciple of Christ. All that matters is whether or not you have had a comfortable life here on earth.

[RV]

If the story of the rich man and Lazarus is the history of an actual event, does it not seem odd that the rich man goes to the place of suffering simply because he is rich, and Lazarus goes to the place of comfort simply because he is a poor beggar? This is how "Abraham" in the story explained it to the rich man:

... Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.
Luke 16:25 ESV

Is this the criterion for going to heaven or hell? Those who are rich and have received "good" things in life go to hell, but those who are poor and have received "bad" things in life, go to heaven. It doesn't matter how you've lived your life. It doesn't matter whether or not you have become a disciple of Christ. All that matters is whether or not you have had a comfortable life here on earth.

Another good point and something I have't thought about. Thanks Paidion, man it's great to have you back.

The traditional view of hell, which is in part derived by the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, has the "unsaved" dwelling in torment (torture) forever and ever without any hope of escape - these people are helpless once they are there. It is my opinion that God would not allow such a thing to happen simply because torture - even for a moment - is immoral. God, as seen through His Son, Jesus, is merciful and loving and says that we should do good to our enemies.

For this reason I don't believe the traditional view, the conditional immortality view, or the Christian Universalist view because all three include at least some post-death torment (torture). There is another alternative which was first called Ultra-Universalim back in the 19th Century. Here are some of the basic principals of this view.

1. There is no post-death punishment for anyone. New Testament Biblical references to "hell" are metaphors for the punishment or consequences of one's sins on his life prior to his physical death. A good example of God pouring out His wrath in this life is found in Rom 1:18-32. Also, post-death punishment is not found in the Old Testament; all of God's warnings and punishments were for the present life.
2. Eternal Life is literally translated "the life of the age" and refers to the spiritually blessed life enjoyed by those who place their faith in Christ (John 17:3). Eternal Life is often contrasted with perished, destroyed, or dead which refer to one who has been overcome in sin and is suffering the consequences thereof.
3. At the resurrection, the dead are changed, and all are made subject to Christ immediately as they are raised from the dead (see Rom 8:18-23, 1 Cor 15:25-28, Eph 1:9-10). The "last enemy" is death; once death is destroyed, God has no enemies. Christ's death gave Him the power and authority to subject all things to Himself.

Thanks Todd...

One of the things that I find very interesting is the absence of post-death punishment in the O.T.

Why do you suppose there was such an urgency to get the gospel preach on the part of the apostles?

[steve7150]

One of the things that I find very interesting is the absence of post-death punishment in the O.T.

Why do you suppose there was such an urgency to get the gospel preach on the part of the apostles



Generally in the OT there is an absense of post death anything. There is one statement from Daniel re many will be raised to everlasting righteousness and others to everlasting shame, but as in the NT these words like "everlasting" are used to describe an "age" or finite period of time. The apostles were appointed by Jesus to spread the good news that God appointed Christ as a ransom for all men in due time, few will be saved in this lifetime.

[Todd]

Thanks Todd...

One of the things that I find very interesting is the absence of post-death punishment in the O.T.

Why do you suppose there was such an urgency to get the gospel preach on the part of the apostles?

This is a fair question. You seem to be saying, "If everyone is going to be saved in the resurrection, why is there an urgent need for the Gospel?" This is because those who are overcome in sin not only lack the spiritual blessings in Christ, but they also are subject to suffer the penalty of their error (in this life). There is a common theme throughout the New Testament, "You reap what you sow". Those that sow to the Spirit will reap "the life of the age" (eternal life), those who sow to the flesh will reap corruption (see Gal 6:8, Rom 1:18-32). The apostles understood that faith in Christ was the only way to escape the corruption that is in the world through lust (2 Pet 1:4), so they preached the Gospel to persuade men to follow Christ.

Todd

[RV]

This is a fair question. You seem to be saying, "If everyone is going to be saved in the resurrection, why is there an urgent need for the Gospel?" This is because those who are overcome in sin not only lack the spiritual blessings in Christ, but they also are subject to suffer the penalty of their error (in this life). There is a common theme throughout the New Testament, "You reap what you sow". Those that sow to the Spirit will reap "the life of the age" (eternal life), those who sow to the flesh will reap corruption (see Gal 6:8, Rom 1:18-32). The apostles understood that faith in Christ was the only way to escape the corruption that is in the world through lust (2 Pet 1:4), so they preached the Gospel to persuade men to follow Christ.

Thanks Todd.

On the other side of that coin though, to sow spiritual things meant that you were killed, rejected, lonely, tortured. This is also seems to be common in the N.T. For that matter, in many places, to sow spiritual things means the same thing today.

I guess we may also need to define "spiritual blessings in Christ".

If there was some noticeable difference between the world and the church (besides service attendance), we may be able to embrace your ideas. But... I don't see a huge difference.

Are you following me? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to think through this. I'd like to believe what you're saying, I really would.

If you visit a hospital or nursing home, the end of the road looks very simular for those that have held the faith and those that haven't.