The Rich Man and Lazarus

[Dr. Shane]

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is found in Luke 16.  My understanding of this parable is that those originally listening to it would not have understood it to be literal.  Much like modern fairytales are told to teach a lesson.  No one would listen to Goldilocks and the Three Bears and believe it was an actual story.  Nor would anyone list to the story of the Three Little Pigs and take the story literally.  In the same way, parables were rich with metaphors and symbolism.  The rich man in this parable represented the Jewish nation which is evident because in death he went to Abraham's bosom.  Jesus often framed parables in ways the people in His audience would understand.  He used metaphors of seeds, coins and sheep to reach an agriculturally-based people under Roman rule.  Although Old Testament Scriptures do not teach that man receives his reward at death,  Greek philosophy was held by many in that culture to the extent that many did believe in a conscious state of existence between death and the resurrection. Jesus was reaching the people where they were at.  In other areas of the New Testament, it is clearly taught that the righteous receive their reward at the second coming of Christ (Matt, 16:27; 25:31-41; 1 Cor. 15:51-55; 1 Thess. 4:16,17; Rev. 22:12).  The Old Testament did not teach that but is mentioned in post-exilic Jewish literature. 

The rich man is a fair metaphor for the Jewish nation because they were rich in knowledge of the law and messianic prophecies.  The purple garment is symbolic of royalty as the Jews were God's chosen people.  Lazarus was a poor beggar at the gate of the rich man.  While the rich man did him no harm, he did not help him either.  Thus is the story of the Jewish nation and the pagan nations around them.  The Jews had God's truth but kept it to themselves just as the rich man did nothing to help the beggar at his gate.  The fact that Lazarus laid at the gate indicates he was a cripple.  He was unable to help himself.  Just as the pagans were ignorant of the truth revealed to the Jews.  It was the responsibility of the Jews to teach the pagans just as it was of the rich man to feed Lazarus. 

Those that want to take the passage literally will struggle to the descriptions given.  Lazarus is carried off to Abraham's bosom by angels while the rich man is buried in hell.  The word for hell in this passage means grave.  His physical body was buried in a grave.  Of course, the same would have been true of Lazarus' physical body although that is not mentioned.  There is nothing in the Old Testament that teaches men, or souls, go off to some place to suffer torment after death but before the resurrection.  However, such teaching is simular to the doctrine of Greek philosophies at the time.  To take the parable literally would mean that heaven and hell are within speaking distance and those in heaven can communicate with those in hell.  Does anyone believe that?

 

[Gustave]

The only problem with your fairytale theory is that Jews listening to Jesus' teaching  on this would have understood it to be literal EXCEPTING the Sadducees who Christ explicitly repudiated for their unbelief in the immortality of the soul. 

Acts 23, 6: But when Paul perceived that one part were Sad′ducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, “Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees; with respect to the hope and the resurrection of the dead I am on trial.”  And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sad′ducees; and the assembly was divided.  For the Sad′ducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.

Had you told a common Jew that the dead don't know anything and are unaware of anything  they would have smacked up upside the head and sent you running back to the Sadducees. If Jesus was going to use fairy tales the story would have included Grumkins and Golems - but He didn't. 

Matthew 14, 26: And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.

Mark 12, 24 Jesus said to them, “Is not this why you are wrong, that you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God?  For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.  And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?  He is not God of the dead, but of the living; you are quite wrong.”

God didn't say I was the God of so and so - God said I AM the God of so and so. 

[Dr. Shane]

We know from post-exilic Jewish literature that the belief on a continuous state of being after death, and before the resurrection, was present in some Jewish thought.  However the Old Testament does not teach that.  Solomon did state that the dead do not know anything (Eccl. 9:5).  Job says a man dies and wastes away, gives up the ghost, his sons come to honor him and he knows it not, they grieve for him and he does not know it (Job14:10-12, 21).  When Jesus told Martha her brother would rise, she responded, "I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." (John 11:14).

Regarding the disciples believing in spirits, well, spirits are real.  And, the are scary.  A spirit is a demon, often impersonating a man.  I definitely believe in spirits.  I believe in UFOs.  I believe in Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster.  I do not think people are just imagining things.  I believe that demons haunt the earth.  That doesn't mean these spirits come from our dead ancestors but rather they are simply fallen angels.

In my study of world religions, I find that an attractive teaching of many is ancestral worship.  Many people find great comfort in the belief that their ancestors are near to them after death.  Many have testified of interacting with their ancestors.  Valorie Bertinelli, ex-wife of guitarist Eddie Van Halen, has shared that Eddie came and visited her shortly after his death.  She found much comfort from that visit.  The belief that death is not the end is foundational in many of the world religions.  However, just as foundation is the opposite belief in Adventism.  The belief that we enter into a dreamless sleep when we die is so distinct that it makes our faith incompatible with other religions.  One cannot be both a Hindu and an Adventist or practice the Lakota traditions while holding Adventist beliefs.  Ancestral worship is entirely incompatible with Adventism.

[Gustave]

We know from post-exilic Jewish literature that the belief on a continuous state of being after death, and before the resurrection, was present in some Jewish thought.  However the Old Testament does not teach that.  Solomon did state that the dead do not know anything (Eccl. 9:5).  Job says a man dies and wastes away, gives up the ghost, his sons come to honor him and he knows it not, they grieve for him and he does not know it

 

You should have read more slowly and realized that individual that dies no longer has anything to do with what happenbs under the sun. As for the teachings that the man's sons come to visit him and he doesn't know it - please keep reading and you will see:

Job 14, 21: His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them. But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.

Every modern translation renders it as: 

RSV: He feels only the pain of his own body, and he mourns only for himself.

NIV: They feel but the pain of their own bodies   and mourn only for themselves

ISV: He feels only his own pain,^[ and grieves only for himself.

ESV: He feels only his own pain,^[ and grieves only for himself

This completely rebuts what you claimed about the OT teaching the dead know nothing. 

You can appeal to the Jehovah's Witness Bible OR the Seventh-day Adventist Bible for help here as both come up with NOVEL translations to this text so that an addition is made so that the text reads while they were still alive. 

This doesn't see however to be very convincing to me - it looks as if there is a Doctrine that contrasts what Ellen White said SDA's and Jehovah's Witnesses claim the teaching doesn't really say that AND make a new translation that agrees with them. 

This isn't some cutting edge apologetic I'm deploying here - its well known and for a long time. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Editorial comment:  A purpose of this forum is to promote civil communication between Seventh-day Adventists and others.  From this perspective, I may not step in to "correct" people whom I may think are wrong.  However, I may correct people who misrepresent the SDA Chruch.  I also may post my personal opinion.

This conversation remains civil and all are welcome to participate.

 

[Dr. Shane]

21 hours ago, Gustave said:

 As for the teachings that the man's sons come to visit him and he doesn't know it - please keep reading and you will see

I think Adventists tend to read verse 22 as poetic personification.  Much like Genesis 4:10 says that Abel's blood cried out to God.  Some people may read that literally and believe that Abel's blood actually gained the ability to speak and cried out to God.  I think it is better translated as poetic personification.  The same is true with Judges 9:8-15.  The trees didn't literally talk to each other with human language.  Verse 22 in Job chapter 14 is to be interpreted in context of the chapter.  Man dies.   Man wastes away.  Like flood waters that dry up, man is gone.  He lies down and does not rise.  He does not wake from his sleep.  If we were to read verse 22 literally, it would contradict verses 10 and 11.  How can a man's flesh literally be in pain if it is as dried up flood waters that have vanished?  How can a man's soul mourn if it is as a ghost that is gone?

Job is one of my favorite books in the Bible.  One of the things I love about it is the poetry.  I once read a chapter of it to an unbelieving friend on a construction job site.  He was highly educated but raised unchurched.  He was from a wealthy family, was educated in multiple countries and highly cultured.  He listened to classical music in the construction office trailer.  So, I asked him to listen to me read a chapter of Job just as a sample of Bible poetry.  He was amazed. 

Of course, if we read verse 22 literally, and ignore the context, it would support a belief in some sort of purgatory.  It is speaking in general which would mean an application to all humanity.  In other words, no one goes directly to heaven because the flesh must first be in pain and their soul must first mourn.  I will grant that is one way to read it.  I don't read it that way but I will admit that others could choose that interpretation if they are so inclined.