HELL - Is Luke 16:19-31 a Parable or a True, Factual Account? Proof?

John V

Sorry to hear that. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard! I still think it's obviously a parable - as do evangelical sholars I Howard Marshall and Darrell Bock - both of whom wrote large commentaries on Luke. Anyone who would accuse another of not believing God's word because one chooses to see this as a parable is indescribably clueless about the Gospel. Anyway...

 

I agree, I believe it’s not a parable, but make no mistake; there is a literal Hell in which Jesus Himself describes and His teachings are clear. There’s life after death, we are conscious after we die and we will go to a place called Heaven or Hell.

As someone posted before, in none of the parables is a proper name used. And we have two proper names used in this passage.

 

I believe the story is true as stated. But 2 significant points I have not seen brought up.... The parables Jesus used were always believable, and not about something physically impossible; so even if you do not believe in the literal truth of this passage, do you believe that that what happened to the rich man can and does happen to some people, or did Jesus make up an overblown myth? But the other point is that it doesn't matter as to whether the man had a physical body in a literal flame. If such a state is not literally that, then it is still just that terrible, or Jesus is a monstrous misleader.

 

Good post.

The point is that there is a real Hell and it IS tormenting. And it WILL BE the final home of those who reject Christ's teachings. But the parable was not simply about Hell but about two men and their lives. Was Jesus meaning to say that people in Hell can talk to people not in Hell? I don't think that was His point. My point is that a scripture should be interpreted as it was meant to be - without mandating that the most LITERAL interpretation be correct.

 

I think the story is a parable, as to the individuals and perhaps some of the conditions of the afterlife, but the division between heaven and hell are real, and there's no question which one we want to be in. The point is twofold; your estate in this world is not proof of your estate in the next; and you have enough information from the scriptures ("Moses and the prophets") to make it to heaven.

I'm not so sure that people in hell carry on literal conversations with people in heaven. That might have been a rhetorical device. I'll check on that, among other things, once I get to heaven.

 

"Afterlife" ? For people in hell it's not life, but "afterdeath".

Death is active, dead is dead. Else Death would not be commanded to give up the dead. They won't be in hell's flames at the GWT.

The continuation of Lazarus being mentioned does indicate, unmistakingly indicate this si actual, not allegory.

The rich man can still communictae with "Father Abraham" just as those who are in hell still plead for mercy and forgiveness. Take note that the rich man could not communictae with Lazarus, nor could Lazarus hear his pleas for even a drop of water, if he could, that wouldn't seem much like paradise.

Some scholars fail to see the significance of being in Abraham's bosom as protected from all misery and torment, just as much as the Words of father Abraham don't offer any gratification, only further torment in knowing that the state in hell is just that, a place of literal fire and torment, isolation from those who no longer are in despair and tormented by the flesh and it's temptations. We can't say that about the rich man, though, his desire for even a drop of water waqs to quench his thirst, no, only indicating it would do as little as the promise through deceits of satan to offer the flesh satisfaction, to no avail.

The rich man should have been crying out for "Living water", that which the Lord gave to the woman at the well.

There are just too many facts offered in this passage to ratify it as a parable, it is an actual account.

Just because some professor gobstopper wrote a 300 page book allocating his views does not a scholar make.

I wonder if Mr Graham's change of heart about hell is influenced by the jw's? I do know he had the mormon tabernacle choir sing at a "crusade" of his way back yonder. Also I wonder if those looking at this as a parable are influenced that way as well?

Just a question, not accusation.

 

QS,

Are you saying that "Abraham's bosom" carries the significance of being protected?? I'm sorry but this is not mentioned specifically in the text thus it cannot be correct. What are you doing - trying to inject allegory into the text? This passage has too many details for that. It must mean only what it says.

 

Luke 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham‘s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

John Gill thought this is a parable, but even he has the same view about Abraham's bosom:
by Abraham’s bosom is meant heaven, a phrase well known to the Jews, (not Charles though) by which they commonly expressed the happiness of the future state: of Abraham’s happy state they had no doubt; and when they spake of the happiness of another’s, they sometimes signified it by going to Abraham; as when the mother of the seven sons, slain by Caesar, saw her youngest going to be sacrificed

Charles, I'm glad you do have your view, but it looks rather dim.LYTS

 

QS,

I (actually) completely agree with the Abraham's bosom thing - it's just that you seem to be using a double standard! On the one hand you say it that it is literal and factual and that allegory is not intended but then you give a symbolic meaning to "Abraham's bosom". That to me seems inconsistent. Regarding Gill, you say Gill I say Fitzmyer. Is your guy a "gobstopper" too?

My real disagreement (correct me if I'm wrong) is that you seem to insist on a LITERAL interpretation and then go from there instead of looking for what the text likely originally meant in terms of Semitisms, rhetoric etc.

To me it seems obvious that Jesus is teaching here - and that observation should not AUTOMATICALLY be thrown out since it doesn't jive with LITERAL viewpoint.

 

Charles, the passage states that the rich man was literally buried, Lazarus literally carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom, a literal place.

But the question then arises, what about Lazarus' body? We can see the rich man's body in the grave, his soul in hell. Lazarus' soul in Abraham's bosom, but no indication of the whereabouts of his body. Since the dogs at the rich man's gate licked his sores, did these same dogs consume his body? Isn't this the same Lazarus? This is also why I believe it is actual. But I can only presume about his body.

I believe the likes of Clarence Larkin had some insight to the passage, in relating the time when hell hath enlarged herself being when Abraham's bosom/paradise emptied, giving more room for hell.

Oh well.

 

They don't. Lazarus was in paradise, not heaven. Paradise was a separate section from hell separated by a great gulf and was where the OT saints went after death. When Jesus died and descended into hell, he took the Paradise part (with the OT saints) to heaven. That is why He could say to the thief on the cross "This day you will be with me in Paradise."

BTW, this is a true factual story, not a parable.

 

It is factual if you throw out the surrounding facts.

How about this one: why is a person in a body in hell, when the undsaved dead don't get their bodies until AFTER the millenium. It is kind of funny how theology needs to penetrate all areas of Scripture and not just where we want it to.

 

This is more presumption. Jesus did not say that the 'rich man' could not communicate with Lazarus, nor that Lazarus could not hear his pleas. The conversation was between the rich man and Abraham (another rich man, incidentally-- both of them had good things in this world). Nevertheless, it is putting words into Jesus' mouth to say something "could not" happen which Jesus did not say that about.

But you're right about the setup not seeming like paradise. Is it really paradise to watch a helpless man being tormented by the worst type of torment known to man? It's little wonder sometimes that nonbelievers think Christians believe in a "monster god." I think otherwise-- which I hope is obvious-- but sometimes I cannot say that they don't make a valid point.

 

What is your scripture reference for that?

 

This is more presumption. Jesus did not say that the 'rich man' could not communicate with Lazarus, nor that Lazarus could not hear his pleas. The conversation was between the rich man and Abraham (another rich man, incidentally-- both of them had good things in this world). Nevertheless, it is putting words into Jesus' mouth to say something "could not" happen which Jesus did not say that about.

But you're right about the setup not seeming like paradise. Is it really paradise to watch a helpless man being tormented by the worst type of torment known to man? It's little wonder sometimes that nonbelievers think Christians believe in a "monster god." I think otherwise-- which I hope is obvious-- but sometimes I cannot say that they don't make a valid point. </font>[/QUOTE]Luke 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

Seems you missed the fact Father Abraham is where Lazarus is and able to communicate with the rich man. Those words "neither can they pass" definitely indicates "no passing", not bodily, we agree on that I believe, not spiritually, in any form, including communications of any kind.

I can see the rich man in "outer darkness" able to see Lazarus, but not Lazarus being able to see into outer darkness, else how did the rich man know Lazarus could dip the tip of his finger in water he couldn't see?

Another point that clearly indictaes this is literal, all the charcters and the scenes are literal: literal flame, literal water, literal gulf, Abraham literally speaking to the rich man, plus other literal things. Oh well.

 

Those are not the scriptures' word, but your words; therefore incompetent.

I can see the rich man in "outer darkness" able to see Lazarus, but not Lazarus being able to see into outer darkness, else how did the rich man know Lazarus could dip the tip of his finger in water he couldn't see?

And how did Abraham identify him in that outer darkness? And if it is in fact outer darkness, how could the 'rich man' see anything from within such an environment? Could he see Lazarus' finger, but not his own? IOW, how can light (necessary for sight) come through "outer darkness" and the state actually be outer darkness? "Outer darkness" is another term that you insert into this passage which the scripture itself does not use.

 

Those are not the scriptures' word, but your words; therefore incompetent.

I can see the rich man in "outer darkness" able to see Lazarus, but not Lazarus being able to see into outer darkness, else how did the rich man know Lazarus could dip the tip of his finger in water he couldn't see?

And how did Abraham identify him in that outer darkness? And if it is in fact outer darkness, how could the 'rich man' see anything from within such an environment? Could he see Lazarus' finger, but not his own? IOW, how can light (necessary for sight) come through "outer darkness" and the state actually be outer darkness? "Outer darkness" is another term that you insert into this passage which the scripture itself does not use. </font>[/QUOTE]Matthew 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness ; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Matthew 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness : there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Uh, you don't say?

If hell isn't outer darkness, then what is?


Those who are cast into ourter darkness are those who are in hell.

The metaphoric resemblence of Father Abraham/father of all Israel, is God Himself,literally.

Trying to understand the torment in hell, well, you just need the Lord to allow you to see things from that perspective. As soon as you can explain "outer darkness" with comprehension, then you'll see that those in it can't see anything but that which is beyond their reach, that is why it is called "outer" darkness.

Timothy Leary had this perspective from the multitudes of LSD-18 and LSD-25 experimentations of being on the outside, looking in. Lazarus is on the inside looking out.

That is where much of the notion comes from that hell is a place where people party and never grow old.

I know that is a crude example, especially using some one as Timothy Leary, but he is a prime example of some one in hell considering the real aspects to outer darkness and inner beauty as portrayed in the literal account of the rich man and Lazarus. Sorry if you don't accept this, but it's fact, not fiction. Besides, Jesus never was the One to tell "stories".

 

What is your scripture reference for that? </font>[/QUOTE]Christ's descent into the heart of the earth makes Hell more complicated than many suspect. Christ did not suffer; He went to Paradise! Scripture appears to teach that at one time, Hell contained Paradise within it:

Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Christ was in the heart of the earth; yet He was in Paradise. It appears that this Paradise is no longer a region of Hell. It has been moved up to one of the heavenly regions in the Third Heaven:

1 Corinthians 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

There is certainly no "heaven" in the center of the earth, therefore Christ moved Paradise upwards (probably some time after His Resurrection):

Ephesians 4: 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

Why doesn't the Bible simply say Christ went to Paradise? Why call it "Hell" if Christ did not go to the terrible place of darkness? It is for the simple reason that Paradise was a region in Hell at that time. Christ did go to Hell. Only, He did not have to experience torment in its
dark regions.


Isaiah 5:14 Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.

http://www.kingdombaptist.org/article581.cfm

I Peter 3:[18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
[19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

 

Sheeagle, you didn't answer my question.

As to the person who tried to answer my question, please explain how this LITERAL soul wanted to have a drop of water on it. Isn't that impossible?