Lazarus and the Rich Man [A Scriptural Journey Through the Intriguing Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man] L. Ray Smith Before reading my opening statement there will be many who will find fault with this paper. What parable? they will ask. Contrary to all the Scriptural proof that Luke 16:19-31 is indeed a classic example of a parable, there are many who deny this fact. The reason for so many desiring to take this parable literally is an attempt to add credence to the heretical teaching that YaHuWaH Almighty is going to torture the vast majority of all humanity who has ever lived by burning their flesh with real fire in a hellhole of insane pain for all eternity. But even if we take this parable literally, it still does not support such an absurd and evil teaching. When the truth is seen, the Rich man is overcome with great emotional torment by whatever this flame represents, but he is not physically being burned or barbecued in this flame.. That the Rich man is in a most distressful situation, there is no argument. But he is not burning in eternal hell fire. That Lazarus is being comforted, there is also no argument, but neither is he presently basking in the sunshine of heaven. The two main figures in this parable represent whole nations of people who are either being shown the spiritual things of YaHuWaH or are being blinded to the spiritual things of YaHuWaH. The situation looks particularly grim and bleak for the Rich man, but certainly not hopeless as is taught in the pulpits of mainstream churchanity. Unhappily, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man has become a sort of theological passport to the annihilation of hundreds of plain and exact verses of Scripture. Next to the gross error in translating the Greek aion (a period of time with a beginning and an end) into an English eternity (no time at all, neither having a beginning nor an ending), I know of no greater misrepresentation of any section of Scripture than this parable. I will be using both the KJV and the Concordant Literal New Testament when quoting Scripture in this paper. Can those who teach that Luke 16 is not a parable, prove their position? No, they can not. Can it then be proved by the Scriptures that this is a parable? Yes, it can. Quite easily, I might add. PARABLE DEFINED Let me give you a technical definition of a parable followed by a more simple definition: (1) Parable: [Greek, para boleʼ= BESIDE CAST]--A statement ʻcast besideʼ or parallel to its real spiritual significance, a figure of likeness in action. GREEK-ENGLISH KEYWORD CONCORDANCE p. 216. (2) A short and simple tale based on familiar things meant to convey a much deeper and profound moral or spiritual truth, WEBSTERʼS DICTIONARY. In Old English it was called a near-story. YaHuWSHuWaH spoke in parables throughout His whole ministry. In Matthew chapter 13 we are given seven different parables. No parable is literal or historical. The second we Page 2 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM make a parable literal, it ceases to be a parable. YaHuWSHuWaH spoke ONLY in parables (not true life or historical stories) among the masses of people who followed Him wherever He went. I am going to some length to demonstrate the absolute absurdity of teaching this parable of Lazarus or any other parable as a literal and historical event. PARABLES MAY MENTION IDENTIFIABLE PERSONS Is Luke 16:19-31 a parable? Many in orthodoxy say that it absolutely is not a parable because a person is mentioned by name and identified as a specific and particular person. The mention of an identifiable person is not, however, the test of a parable. Besides other parables do mention identifiable persons, but they are still parables: Mark 4:15 Mentions Satan Matt. 13:37 Mentions The Son of man Matt. 13:39 Mentions The devil Matt. 15:13 Mentions YaHuWaH the Father II Sam. 12:7 Is said to be King Dawid Ezek. 23:1-4 Mentions Aholah and Aholibah Luke 4:23 YaHuWSHuWaH applies ʻPhysicianʼ to HIMSELF YaHuWSHuWaH SPEAKS TO THE MASSES IN PARABLES ONLY YaHuWSHuWaH spoke to the Pharisees and multitudes in parables: And He begins to speak to them in parables. (Mk.. 12:1). Page 3 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM YaHuWSHuWaH spoke to the multitudes in parables ONLY: All these things YaHuWSHuWaH speaks in parables to the throngs, and apart from a parable He spoke nothing to them... (Mat. 13:34). YaHuWSHuWaH spoke in parables so that his listeners would not understand Him: Wherefore art Thou speaking in parables to them? ... To you has it been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, yet to those it has NOT been given. (Matt.. 13:10-11). Not even the apostles understood these parables (Lk, 16:14)! YaHuWSHuWaH had to explain their meaning to them in private (Mat. 13:18, 36), (Mat. 15:15), etc. The fact that YaHuWSHuWaH spoke to the masses in parables only, ought to be sufficient Scriptural evidence to anyone that Lazarus and the Rich man is indeed a parable. There are, however, many many more proofs. A FIVE-PART PARABLE What is the setting of this Lazarus parable? Actually it is the last of a five-part parable beginning in Chapter 15 of Luke. Here is the reason for these five parables in a row: Now ALL the tribute collectors and sinners were coming near Him to be hearing Him. And both the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying that ʻThis man sinners is receiving, and is eating with them! (Luke 15:1). Verse 2: Now He told them [the tax collectors, sinners, Pharisees, and scribes] THIS PARABLE, saying... YaHuWSHuWaH then gives them FIVE parables, one after the other. The phrase THIS parable certainly is not limited to the next, one, parable only! These are ALL parables and most scholars recognize them as parables. My Oxford KJV even has at the top of the page over the parable of the prodigal son, these words: The parable of the prodigal son. The text does not call it a parable, but certainly it follows that it IS the third part of a five-part parable. Notice the transition that YaHuWSHuWaH uses between the lost sheep and the lost coin? He says, Neither... Some translations have Or... This word certainly connects it to the previous parable! Now notice Chapter 16 first verse, And He said ALSO unto his disciples... Also refers back to all that went before in this five-part parable, and now YaHuWSHuWaH is continuing with the same train of thought with the fourth of this five-part parable. Page 4 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM Notice next the introduction of the third, fourth, and fifth parables: A CERTAIN MAN... (15:11) There was A CERTAIN RICH MAN... (16:1). There was A CERTAIN RICH MAN... (16:19). Again, it is clear that these are THREE parables of a five-part parable! PARABLES MUST ALWAYS BE INTERPRETED Parables are not to be taken literally. They are to be understood figuratively. The real meaning is not in what they literally say, but in what the symbols and figurative language represent. Thatʼs why they are called parables. This is axiomatic! Let us turn to some parables for proof of this point: The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:32) ...this thy brother was dead... Comment: He wasnʼt literally dead. He came home again alive. YaHuWaH did not resurrect him from the dead. The Resurrection is yet future. So the prodigal was NOT literally dead, but from the perspective of his father, he was as good as dead or he could have been considered Spiritually dead. Parable of the Sower (Matt. 13:3-23) And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side; and the fowls came and devoured them up. Comment: This parable isnʼt teaching horticulture. Itʼs about the Word of the Kingdom and how different people receive it! Birds donʼt literally devour the words of YaHuWaH. Sowing Ideal Seed (Matt. 13:24) Yet, while the men are sleeping, his enemy came and sows darnel... Comment: The enemy came. Past tense. Is this, therefore, an historical fact? No. Read verse 39: Now the harvest is the conclusion of the eon. This eon hasnʼt come to an end yet. And the harvest is people not grains and vegetables. Parable of mote in brotherʼs eye (Lk. 6:39-42). Now why are you observing the mote in your brotherʼs eye, yet the beam in your own eye your are not considering? Page 5 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM Comment: A beam is a long piece of timber. How is it possible to have a long piece of timber in oneʼs eye?I know people who could fit it into their mouth, but eye, never. This parable is about morality, not body organs and building materials. Is it not obvious that the literal, physical language in all parables must be interpreted as a higher, spiritual lesson? If the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is both literal and an historical fact, then it contradicts not only the laws of physics and logic, but also literally hundreds of plain verses of Scripture. People are taught that the parables are real stories that YaHuWSHuWaH told to help the people understand His teaching better. Thatʼs partly due to the fact that with many of the parables we are also given the INTERPRETATION! How many would understand these parables if we were not given the interpretation of them? Who would have known Who the sower of seed is? Who would know what the stony places are? Who would understand what the birds represent? Who would know what the good soil represents? Sure, itʼs easy now, YaHuWSHuWaH TOLD US THE ANSWERS! But He ONLY told His disciples the answers at that time, NOT THE MULTITUDES to whom He spoke! THE PARABLE OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN According to the popular teaching of this parable, the Rich man is in an eternal Hell of torture and Lazarus is in eternal Heavenly bliss. Well letʼs be sure then to pay special attention to those traits of character that have separated these two individuals into two entirely different realms. Below is listed in color is the exact literal facts regarding each manʼs character, virtue and deeds that is the reason for a supposed fate of either eternal Hell or eternal Heaven: THE RICH MAN (in red) LAZARUS (in blue) He was RICH ... Ver 19 He was POOR ... Ver 20 He wore PURPLE & CAMBRIC ... Ver 19 He made MERRY (Gk: cheerful, & glad) SPLENDIDLY [like Messengers-Acts 10:30] DAILY ... Ver 19 Probably CRIPPLED (was laid) Ver 20 DISEASED (full of sores) Ver 20 He had a nice HOUSE (his gate) Ver 20 He gave Lazarus FOOD [Gk. psichion, a particle of food left over-scraps] Ver 21 HUNGRY (desiring to be fed) Ver 21 He DIED and was [Gk. entombed] Ver 22 He DIED Ver 22 He lifts up his eyes in [Gk. hades the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE] Ver 23 Page 6 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM Is carried by the Messengers into Abrahams bosom Ver 22 He is in TORMENTS ... Ver 22 Hes ALIVE with a BODY, eyes, Ver 23 Hes ALIVE with a BODY, finger Ver 24 He desires a drop of WATER ... Ver 24 In life he got GOOD things ... Ver 25 In life he got EVIL things ... Ver 25 He is respectful toward authority (FATHER Abraham) Ver 24 He was TORMENTED ... Ver 25 Was COMFORTED [Gk. parakaleo = to comfort when in distress] Ver. 25 He could not cross the GULF ... Ver 26 He could not cross the GULF ... Ver 26 Exhibits LOVE toward his family even while in torment (I have five brothers) Ver 28 PLEADS for their welfare (Nay..) Ver 30 Examine these two comparisons closely. Is it not obvious that what is literally revealed here does not lend itself to an eternal life of torture for the Rich man or an eternal life of heavenly bliss for the poor man? Where else in Scripture do the character traits in red come under eternal condemnation? And where else in Scripture do the character traits in blue bring a promise of deliverance in Heaven? Seriously, WHERE? From what is literally stated about these two individuals it is hard to find condemnation or praise for either party. We know for sure that the Rich man is in a state of condemnation and that Lazarus is in a state of consolement, but there is nothing in the narrative to tell us why this is so. If taken literally, this parable consists of statements that are illogical, unscriptural, contradictory, and impossible. But, when we understand the symbolism of this parable, it opens up our understanding to YaHuWaHʼs dealing with all peoples on earth! We must know the real identity of these two individuals before we can know that their treatment is a just treatment based on their lives and based on YaHuWaHʼs favor. The Rich man received good things in life and Lazarus received evil things in life. That is obviously true. However, neither of those is Scriptural grounds for either being rewarded or condemned. Where? Present a Scripture. Mashiyach said that it is difficult for a rich man to inherit the Kingdom, for example, and that certainly is true. But it is not the fact of being rich that makes this so, but rather the power that wealth has over the soul to keep one from pursuing ruwachual things. Some people are rich and are right with YaHuWaH. Other people are rich and are not right with YaHuWaH. But the bottom line is how YaHuWaH has constituted the person himself that makes the difference, not the fact that he is wealthy. Page 7 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM Donʼt suppose that I am siding with the Rich man at the expense of Lazarus. I am not. I am merely showing how ludicrous it is to insist that this parable is literal. A VERSE BY VERSE ANALYSIS Verse by verse now we will see if this parable can possibly be taken literally. Luke 16:19: DOES A WELL-DRESSED WEALTHY MAN SPELL SIN? Now a certain man was rich... Many reading these words immediately conclude that being rich must be a sin. This is the one outstanding feature of this man--he is RICH. Is that a sin? Abraham, just talking distance away here, was very rich (Gen. 13:2). Yitshaq was rich, Yaaqob was rich, Yoseph was rich, Dawid (a man after YaHuWaHʼs own heart) was rich. Iyob was the richest man in all the East (Job. 1:3). And it was YaHuWaH Who blessed them, thatʼs why they were rich. Being rich is no character flaw or sin. Besides, the Scriptures say: ...YaHuWaH is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall be reaping also... (Gal. 6:7) And ...who is sowing sparingly, sparingly shall be reaping also, and who is sowing bountifully, bountifully shall be reaping also... (II Cor. 9:6-7). ...he dressed in purple and fine linen (cambric) [Gk bussos = COTTON] probably of a fine quality, perhaps a cloth with cotton in the warp and flax in the woof. Why should we care what color or what fabric of clothing he wore? Fine clothing are not a sin. What does that have to do with a manʼs character, virtue, or deeds? If taken literally, nothing. But since this is symbolic it then is THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE WHOLE PARABLE! The description of the Rich manʼs clothing and the position of Lazarus in Abrahamʼs bosom are the two vital keys in understanding this whole parable. ...daily making merry [Gk. cheerful & glad] splendidly... Is having a cheerful and glad spirit a sin? I donʼt think so. Shauwl says: ...that I may be of good cheer... (Phil. 2:19). Dawidʼs heart was glad ( Acts 2:26). And the Messengers dressed splendidly (Acts 10:30). IS POVERTY AND SICKNESS A VIRTUE? Now there was a certain poor man... Page 8 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM Being poor is no virtue! In fact the Scriptures have a lot to say about poverty: ...a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come... (Prov. 6:10-11). He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand... (Prov. 10:4). ...The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing... (Prov. 13:4). Many Scriptures show poverty to be the direct result of sin. Again, Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7. It is YaHuWaH Who makes both rich and poor (I Sam. 2:7). ...named Lazarus... [Heb: helpless] Why should we know his name if this is literal? Lazarus was a common name. And who would ever want to be named Helpless? We are not given the name of the Rich man. What does it matter one way or the other what his name is if this is a literal story and we donʼt know which Lazarus this was anyway. Ah, but since this is a parable it does matter, and we CAN know which Lazarus this really is and who the rich man really is. ...who had been cast at his portal (gate)... Being thrown out into the street is no virtue. ...having sores [Gk. elkos = DRAWER] (ulcers)... Being sick and diseased is not a virtue. Diseases associated with the botch, open sores, boils and ulcers are very often a direct curse from YaHuWaH in the Scriptures. See: Ex. 9:2, Job 2:7, Deut. 28:27, 35, Rev. 16:2, and many others. ...yearning to be satisfied from the scraps (not crumbs) [Gk. psichion = SCRAPS--A particle of food which is left over after eating] which are falling from the rich manʼs table. It is no virtue to be begging for bread. Crumbs falling from a table is an idiom, not literal. I have eaten at Rich menʼs tables myself, from $25,000 a place setting of China from the Ming Dynasty, and I assure you that scraps of food were not falling from that table--Rich people do not eat like pigs! A few crumbs, is possible, but crumbs are not enough to feed a hungry ant, let alone a grown man. Besides, if Lazarus is a righteous man why is he begging food? Read Psa. 37:25: ...Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, NOR HIS SEED BEGGING BREAD! Page 9 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM There is absolutely nothing in the description of Lazarus that would indicate he was a righteous man. But when we identify him, there is much to show that he was a righteous man, and that his poverty and sickness was not that of a literally diseased beggar in the street. But the curs (wild dogs) also, coming, licked his ulcers. It is a dogʼs nature to lick sores, but they didnʼt come to this manʼs house for that purpose. They came there to get scraps of food as well. However, think for a moment. What does this bit of information add to our understanding of this story if it is to be taken literally? Nothing! I mean YaHuWSHuWaH could have told us that, the sky was cloudy or the cock was crowing or there were holes in the street. So what? What do wild dogs add to our understanding, if itʼs literal? But we learn in Scripture that dogs represent something totally different from four-legged animals that bark and bite. Here is a real clue as to who Lazarus and his dog companions really represent. And as this is a parable it was not physical scraps of literal food that Lazarus and the dogs desired. Who then is this Rich man, who being tormented, nonetheless, possessed and disseminated (albeit it small portions) of life-giving food to the poor? The Rich man, regardless of his character or lack thereof, was obviously blessed of YaHuWaH: The Master shall make thee plenteous in goods... (Deut. 28:11). And ...bless all the work of thine hand (Ver 12). As he sewed, so he reaped (Gal. 6:7, II Cor. 9:6-7). He got good things in life and the Scripture plainly tells us that Every GOOD gift is from above... (Jas. 1:17). Lazarus was obviously cursed of YaHuWaH: ...thou shalt. not prosper (Deut. 28:16). The botch and scab (Ver. 27 & 29). He obviously sewed sparingly and reaped even more sparingly. When one is homeless, hungry, and diseased in the street; it doesnʼt get much worse than this. CONTRADICTIONS OF A LITERAL INTERPRETATION If this parable is taken literally, we will find more than a few hundred major problems with the rest of YaHuWaHʼs revealed Word. One will have to use a black marker or cut from the Scriptures most verses dealing with Page 10 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM ruwach, soul, body, death, resurrection, immortality, grave, hades, sheol, sin, punishment, chastisement, firstfruits, rewards, justification, reconciliation, prophecy, favor, deliverance and the sovereignty of YaHuWaH, just to name a few! All of these contradict the idea that this parable can be literal. All of them. Now the poor man came to die and he is carried away by messengers into Abrahamʼs bosom. Impossible. This statement if taken literally is neither historical nor Scriptural. Many say this represents Lazarus in Heaven. How, pray tell, could Lazarus be in Heaven while his Master was still on the earth? Yet now Mashiyach has been roused from among the dead, the firstfruit of those who are reposing. (I Cor. 15:20). Abraham wasnʼt the firstfruit. Lazarus wasnʼt the firstfruit. YaHuWSHuWaH Mashiyach WAS THE FIRSTFRUIT OF THEM THAT SLEPT! The latter fruit, Shauwl tells us, are [still] reposing. YaHuWSHuWaH plainly said, not only had Dawid not ascended into the heavens, but that NO MAN has ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven.(Yahuwchanan 3:13). Teaching that this parable is a literal historical fact makes Mashiyach out to be a liar. When our Master was alive on this earth giving us this parable, He said: ...NO MAN HAS ASCENDED UP TO HEAVEN... So how can it be said that at the same time our Master was telling us that no man has ascended up to heaven, that Lazarus and Abraham are already up in heaven? This is not just an interesting sidelight or opinion of Ray Smith. THIS IS ABSOLUTE, INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURAL PROOF THAT WHEN YaHuWSHuWaH GAVE THIS PARABLE THERE WAS NO MAN NAMED LAZARUS LIVING IN HEAVEN WITH ABRAHAM OR ANYONE ELSE!! So here then is just one of the hundreds of problems with the Scriptures if we insist this parable is literal. There are many Scriptures that tell us where a person goes when hedies. The Scriptures say he returns from where he came. So if he goes to Heaven, then he came from Heaven; if he goes to Hell, then he came from Hell. But Scriptures do not teach that people RETURN to heaven or hell when they die. Read these plain and simple verses that tell us exactly where man came from and where he goes when he dies: ...till you return [Hebrew, shub] unto the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust you are, and unto dust shall you return (Gen. 3:17-19). Remember I pray you that as clay you did make me, and unto dust you will cause me to return (Job 10:9) You cause man to return unto dust... (Psa. 90:3). Page 11 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM His spirit [the Hebrew word here is ruach, spirit, not neshamah, breath] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish (Psa. 146:3-4). ...you gather in their spirit [Hebrew ruach, spirit] they expire [Hebrew gava, breathe out, gasp, expire], and return to their dust (Psa. 104:29). For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; ... as the one dies, so dies the other; yea, they have all one ruwach; and man has no preeminence above the beasts [in death]: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all return to dust again (Ecc. 3:18-21). Will any of my readers seriously contend that BEASTS return to either heaven or hell when they die? Have we not just read in Ecc. 3:18-21 that ALL [both men and beasts] go unto ONE PLACE? And arenʼt heaven AND hell TWO PLACES rather that ONE PLACE? Am I going too fast for anyone? For sure our Saviourʼs words are so true--the babes in Mashiyach (minors) can understand these spiritual things, but the wise in the wisdom of this world cannot understand them. Here is irrefutable Scriptural proof that when a person dies he returns to the dust. Messengers or Messengers donʼt take dead people anywhere when they die. If this is literal, then they would have had to carry a dead Lazarus into the ancient cave of a dead Abraham. The resurrection is yet future (I Thes. 4:16:18). Remember how Shauwl told us of Hymeneus and Philetus who ...swerve as to truth, saying that the resurrection has ALREADY OCCURRED [as defenders of a literal interpretation also contend] subverting the belief of some. (II Tim. 2:18)? Lazarus was carried (in the parable) into Abrahamʼs bosom. Abrahamʼs bosom is not the reward of the saved. Abrahamʼs bosom is not Heaven. Furthermore, no more than one person could fit into Abrahamʼs bosom. Itʼs a parable. When YaHuWSHuWaH gave this parable was Abraham alive in heaven or dead in his grave? First notice what Gen. 25:8-9 says: Then Abraham gave up the ruwach, and died ... and his sons Yitshaq and Ishmael buried him in a cave... When YaHuWSHuWaH was teaching these parables Abraham was still dead. Abraham IS DEAD (John 8:52)! After Mashiyachʼs death on the stake and resurrection (nearly 30 years after) Abraham was still dead. By belief Abraham ... sojourns in the land of promise ... he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is YaHuWaH ... In belief DIED ALL THESE [Abraham included], being not requited with the promises ... for He [YaHuWaH] makes ready for them a city (Heb. 11:8,9,10,13,16). Abraham had not yet as of the writing of the book of Hebrews received the promises YaHuWaH made to him. Besides Abraham was not promised Heaven, but this earth along Page 12 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM with King Dawid (Jer. 30:9) and the Twelve Apostles who will be ruling over the twelve tribes of Ysrael on this earth (Rev. 5:10). And the City, New Yahrushalom, comes down from heaven to the New Earth. By the way, after Mashiyachʼs resurrection, we read that King Dawid as well was also still dead. ...Dawid, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day... For Dawid is NOT ascended into the heavens... (Acts 2:29 & 34). So consider: At the time Mashiyach taught this parable, Abraham was STILL DEAD, Dawid (a man after YaHuWaHʼs own heart) was STILL DEAD and the Scripture specifically tells us that Dawid DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN. Then to remove all doubt and speculation regarding heaven, Mashiyach plainly stated that, NO MAN HAS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN! Which part of the word NO is it that theologians do not understand? Now the rich man also died, and was entombed. And in the unseen [Gk: hades], lifting up his eyes... (Ver. 23) Impossible. He died, was entombed, and lifted up his eyes? Where did he get a body in hades, seeing that they just sealed his body in a tomb? Have you never heard of exhuming a body from a grave? Six days, six months, six years after death, when they open a grave, the body is still there. And itʼs usually rotten and the eyes are decayed away. ...was entombed...and in the unseen [hades], lifting up his eyes... If, as theologians teach that the grave is one place and hades is another place, then no man can have his body entombed while at the same time the eyes of his body can be lifted up in a place called hades. And we know his body was still in the tomb, so how can he be simultaneously in hades with a new body? And how could this man literally lift up his eyes in hell seeing that hell is the translation of the Greek word hades which means the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE? To see one canʼt be in the UNSEEN, nor can it be a place of NO perception. The parable says that he died and was entombed, but that he lifts up his eyes in hades. He canʼt be literally dead and literally alive at the same time and in two different locations. Hades is a Greek word (and is synonymous with Sheol in the Hebrew O.T.) and it has a meaning. The elements are UN-PERCEIVED. It can be properly translated into English as unseen or imperceptible. Now how can one see in the unseen? Itʼs ridiculous. How can anyone have perception in the imperceptible? The dead canʼt see, Itʼs a parable. There is no consciousness in [Heb: Sheol] or [Gk: Hades](Psa. 146:4)--none. Sheol and Hades are synonymous in Scripture. In Acts 2:27 hades is translated from the Hebrew word sheol. Look carefully at these two verses: Page 13 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM His spirit [ruach] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish (Psa. 146-3-4). And ...there is no works, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol where you go (Ecc. 9:10). Device [Heb. mchesh- bown--contrivance, intelligence, reason]. Do these two verses in Ecclesiasties sound like dark sayings? or tricky proverbs? or difficult parables? or deep mysteries? They are plain, simple statements of facts that any child can understand! But notice how they absolutely contradict the consciousness in hades theory. One more Scriptural proof on this point. And it came to pass, that the beggar DIED ... the rich man also DIED... (Luke 16:22). So from verse 22 onward, the beggar and the rich man are IN DEATH! Now Psalm 6:5 For IN DEATH THERE IS NO REMEMBRANCE OF THEE [YaHuWaH], in THE GRAVE who shall give thee [YaHuWaH] thanks? So, is it possible to take this parable literally without violating Scripture after Scripture after Scripture? I think not. WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN HADES? According to many, these literally happen in Hades: But according to YaHuWaH, nothing happens in Hades: Do these things literally take place in hades or only figuratively? lifting up his eyes existing in torments is seeing he shouting, said cool my tongue I am pained you are in pain No work No device No contrivance No intelligence No reason No knowledge No wisdom Not anything No thoughts In the red we have seeing, feeling, hearing, talking, and reason. In the blue we have Page 14 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM nothing. The red is based on one parable that should never be taken literally while the blue is quoted right from the Scriptures. DEATH IS LIKE SLEEP I have heard many jeer the idea that souls sleep in death. Although the phrase soul sleep itself is unscriptural, the idea that the dead are sleeping is most Scriptural. And YaHuWaH said unto Moshah, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers... (Deut. 31:16). And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou [Dawid] shalt sleep with thy fathers. (II Sam. 7:12). Dawid slept with his fathers... (I Ki. 2:10). Solomon slept with his fathers... I Ki. 11:43). Iyob said, ...for now shall I sleep in the dust... (Job 7:21). Get this one: Dawid said ...lest I sleep the sleep of DEATH... (Psa. 13:3). For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep [are dead] (ICor.. 11:30). Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep ... the dead shall be raised... ( I Cor. 15:51-52). ...the coming of the Master shall not prevent them which are asleep (I Thes. 4:14). ...My daughter is even now dead ... the maid is not dead, but sleepeth. (Mat. 9:18 & 24). For Dawid, after he had in his own generation served the counsel of YaHuWaH, fell on sleep and was laid with his fathers, and saw corruption. (Acts 13:36). It is said even of our own Master: But now is Mashiyach risen from the dead, and become the firstfruit of them that slept (I Cor. 15:20), etc., etc. Now I believe all of these Scriptures. Either Abraham is dead, buried and sleeping with his fathers, just as Moshah, Dawid, etc., or these Scriptures canʼt be trusted. By the way, where do we read of heaven in this parable? There is not the slightest hint of the word heaven in this parable! Abrahamʼs bosom is no more heaven than my bosom is Page 15 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM heaven. Interestingly, not only did all these patriarchs go to sleep, but they went to sleep with their fathers, and many of their fathers were idolaters! So there we have a dozen Scriptures stating that YaHuWaH likens death to sleep. In what way is being conscious and tortured in the flames of Hell analogous to sleep? YaHuWaH says death is sleep. Now in what way is conscious torture in Hell fire analogous to sleep? In what way is a blissful life in Heaven analogous to sleep? Well, of course, itʼs not analogous at all. Yet YaHuWaH plainly says, many times, that death is sleep YaHuWaH awakens dead people out of sleep. Therefore, the teaching that the dead Rich man and dead Lazarus are not asleep is wrong and unscriptural. It is only in the figurative language of a parable can it be said to be different. Let me give you a Scripture that will lay to rest (pun intended) this issue once and for all. What happens after one dies: If a man die, shall he live again? All the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change comes. Thou shalt call, and I will answer thee; thou wilt have a desire/ yearning for the work of thine hands. (Iyob 14:14-15). When a person dies, he must: WAIT ... FOR APPOINTED TIME ... TILL CHANGE COMES ... YaHuWaH CALLS ... WE LIVE AGAIN... When YaHuWSHuWaH taught this parable there were no Greek Scriptures. So when this rich man died he went to Sheol [Heb. the unseen or imperceptible, the abode of the dead, the grave] Itʼs the same sheol that Mashiyachʼs soul went to at death: Psalm 16:10--For Thou will not leave my soul in the unseen [Sheol]. This verse is quoted in the New Testament Greek: Acts 2:27--For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen [Gk. Hades]. Sheol and Hades are synonymous. The Old Testament says Mashiyachʼs soul went to Sheol, the New says His soul went to Hades. We know that Mashiyach was the firstfruit of them that slept (I Cor. 15:20, 42, 43, 52, 53, 55, I Thes. 4:16-18). The dead in Mashiyach are now ASLEEP according to the Scriptures. WHERE DID Mashiyach GO WHEN HE DIED? Read I Cor. 15 again. Mashiyach died for our sins, He was buried, He rose again the third day. Page 16 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM All right, letʼs be Scripturally exact. SPIRIT: When Mashiyach died, where did His ruwach go? Scripture -- Luke 23:46: Father, into thy hands am I committing My ruwach. Comment: Do other Scriptures verify this truth that at death mans ruwach returns to YaHuWaH Who gave it? Yes. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the ruwach shall return to the YaHuWaH Who gave it (Ecc. 12:7). BODY: Where did Mashiyachs body go at death? Matt. 27:59-60: And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb ... Comment: Do other Scriptures verify this truth that dead bodies are normally buried or entombed? Yes. ... Dawid, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day. (Acts 2:29) Do dead bodies normally begin to decay and stink after a few days? Yes. Martha ... Master, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days. (John 11:39). Would Mashiyachs body have started to decay had not YaHuWaH miraculously prevented it? Yes. ... nor was His flesh acquainted with decay. (Acts 2:3). Was Mashiyach (Himself) said to be where His body was? Yes. They have taken away the Master out of the sepulcher ... (Acts 20:2). Comment: Do other Scriptures verify this truth that the person or personality if you will, or whatever you want the pronoun He to represent, is where the body is? Yes. ... Dawid ... he is buried ... (Acts 2:29) Its his ruwach and his soul but its he that is said to be buried with the body. It was The Son of man who was entombed in the earth (Mat. 12:40 & I Cor. 15:3-5). Mashiyach [he] died ... [he] was buried ... [he] rose again ... SOUL: When Mashiyach died, where did His soul go? For Thou wilt not be forsaking my soul in the unseen [hades] ( Acts 2:27). Comment: Do other Scriptures verify this truth that at death the soul goes to the unseen (hades)? Yes. Psa. 49:15 ... redeem my soul from the power of the grave [Heb. sheol]. Now, back to the parable: NOT ALL PAIN IS PHYSICAL ...being in torments... What are these torments that the Rich man is experiencing? Is it physical pain from Page 17 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM having his skin burned off of his body by real flames of fire? What a marvelous thing it is that we can have access to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which our modern language Scriptures have been translated. We can check every word that has been translated into our English Scriptures. And now, dear readers, we shall do just that. In verse 23 we have the word torments In verses 24 and 25 we have the word tormented. These three words are not translated from the same Greek word, however. And there is a great reason why. This one point alone will demolish any such theory that this Rich man is actually and literally having his flesh burned by real fire. Let us now see if YaHuWSHuWaH gives us any indication whether or not this Rich man will ever come out of this place of torments and what these torments really are: The Greek word translated torments in verse 23 is basanos. From Fribergʼs Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, we are told that basanois which is a form of the noun basanos, means, strictly, a touchstone for testing the genuineness of metals by rubbing against it... In secular Greek literature this word (basanois) was used figuratively to extract information from a person by torture or punishment. From the Greek-English Keyword Concordance we read this, torment, literally a touchstone, used to test metals for alloys, [and] then the examination of persons by torture (Page 307). Though the Rich man may, indeed, be suffering discomfort or pain, it is not from fire burning his flesh, but rather from being tested and proved through chastisement. . It is an interesting fact of Scripture that except for Shauwl punishing the assembly, there is only ONE SCRIPTURE in the whole new testament that uses the word punishment. All others use the word chastisement which always carries the connotation of correction and bringing things back to what is right again. Chastisement by itʼs very definition CANNOT be eternal. There is always a purpose and goal in mind with the use of the word chastise. In Verses 24 and 25 we will likewise see that the word translated tormented does by no means carry a meaning of being physical pained or physically tortured. ...he is seeing Abraham from afar... Impossible. The man is enveloped in flames and can clearly identify two personalities from afar across a great chasm? Not with human eyes. And he shouting, said... Impossible. Proof: Psalm 31:17--...let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave [Heb. SHEOL]. There it is! There is no talking and no shouting in sheol. If anyone can literally shout in hades or sheol they make YaHuWaH a liar. Page 18 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM ...send Lazarus that he should be dipping the tip of his finger in water and cooling my tongue... Impossible. If someone were in a literal fire they would not be asking for a drop of water for their tongue. Their skin and eyes would be in much greater pain than their tongue! The tongue is at least somewhat protected in the mouth cavity. Now if anyone is so silly as to debate me on this issue, let them jump into a fire and see for themselves which burns most--the eyes and skin or the tongue? Besides a drop on the tip of oneʼs finger would be less than useless. It would have no effect. None. Its a parable. This language is figurative. ...I am tormented [pained] in this flame. Impossible. Yes, it is possible to be tormented [pained] in flame, however, it is impossible to calmly talk about it while it is happening! If his body were human so as to have a nervous system and feel pain, then of necessity that same body would burn up. It is the destruction of the skin cells that is causing the pain. Within seconds the skin no longer pains (itʼs dead). Now it is the deeper flesh that pains. But by then the man would pass out and soon die. I mean really, these are things that people completely unversed in the Scriptures understand. It is not literal fire that is causing him this pain or torment. What kind of torment is YaHuWaH talking about in this parable? Is this physical pain from the flames burning his flesh as is taught in churchanity? Not at all! Note that he does not say flames, but rather flame, singular! The Greek word translated tormented in verses 24 and 25 is a totally different Greek word than is used for torments in verse 23. The Greek word here is odunao and it means to be sorrowful or pained, but not physically, but rather EMOTIONALLY! We can easily see how the Ruwach haKadosh of YaHuWaH used this word in Scripture. Adunao is used only two other times in all Scripture and both times it has absolutely nothing to do with physical torture, but rather with emotional sorrow or pain. 1. And when they saw Him, they were amazed: and His mother said unto Him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing [Greek: adunao, same word translated tormented in Luke 16:24 & 25] (Luke 2:48). 2. Sorrowing [Greek: adunao, same word translated tormented in Luke 16:24 & 25], most of all for the words which he spoke, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him into the ship (Acts 20:38). Now then, does anyone believe that they were physically tortured when Shauwl departed? Does anyone believe the parents of YaHuWSHuWaH were physical tortured in their flesh while they searched for YaHuWSHuWaH? Had the KJV translators been consistent they should have translated Luke 16:24 & 25 the same way. He was emotionally pained or sorrowed and not physically tormented or tortured! The same word cannot mean both emotionally sorrowed and physically Page 19 of 52 Rich Man and Lazarus 3/27/13 8:38 AM tortured. The Rich man was emotionally pained or sorrowed by the flame (the testing and trials), not tortured, and thatʼs why, as we shall see later, he wanted a drop [a symbolic drop of water] for his tongue and not a barrel of water to cool his body. Letʼs not be guilty of adding to the Rich manʼs woes. Now Abraham said, Child, be reminded that you got your good thing in your life, and Lzarus likewise evil things. If this Rich man is really being pictured literally in a hellhole of eternal torture, why then didnʼt Abraham say to him something like this: Scoundrel, be reminded that you were a liar, cheat, robber, blasphemer, drunkard, murderer, unrighteous, un-set apart, unrepentant, incorrigible, piece of slime in your life,so burn in Hell for ever. But no, the Rich man is accused of no such things. Most governments do not sentence people to cruel and unusual punishment for minor crimes. Churchanity theologians would sentence this Rich man to all eternity in Hell fire and I donʼt see where according to what this parable literally says he did anything bad. He lived a life of good things! In the literal language of this parable no sin is attributed to him. Not ONE! The rich man got good things, and for that we are told he will have his flesh barbecued with real fire in an eternal hellhole of insane torture? Lazarus got evil things, and for that we are told he will spend eternity in Heaven? Is anyone in this parable said to be literally good or bad?
Posted on: Sat, 05 Jul 2014 08:51:36 +0000