ST. JOHN 11:26

[Rosenritter]

You wrote but I do not understand,

and as we have already seen demonstrated (in Revelation) the bodily remains are claimed by all sorts of sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea

I am not sure I understand your question, but is it concerning bodily remains?

The Book of Common Prayer (1928) of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States (ECUSA), a member of the Anglican Communion provides a specific prayer of committal for burials at sea:

At the Burial of the Dead at Sea. The same Office may be used; but instead of the Sentence of Committal, the Minister shall say:

Unto Almighty God we commend the soul of our brother departed, and we commit his body to the deep; in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection unto eternal life, through our Lord Jesus Christ; at whose coming in glorious majesty to judge the world, the sea shall give up her dead; and the corruptible bodies of those who sleep in him shall be changed, and made like unto his glorious body; according to the mighty working whereby he is able to subdue all things unto himself.^[2]
​

What happens to the bodies that are committed to the deep? It is safe to say that they are eaten by sharks or other fish. When we consider the power of God to create a living man from dust or the woman from a rib, is the total destruction of the body at sea (or in a fire or through decay under the earth) any barrier for God to bodily raise those deceased, however their circumstances?

I'm hoping that you would say "no, it is no difficulty for God." However, some people have thought (and still think) that God could raise someone if their bones were intact, but not if cremated or consumed by beasts. "Death and hell and the sea" covers all bases, it's a way of stating that all the dead are raised without exception.

​

 

[Jacob]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_at_sea

I am not sure I understand your question, but is it concerning bodily remains?



What happens to the bodies that are committed to the deep? It is safe to say that they are eaten by sharks or other fish. When we consider the power of God to create a living man from dust or the woman from a rib, is the total destruction of the body at sea (or in a fire or through decay under the earth) any barrier for God to bodily raise those deceased, however their circumstances?

I'm hoping that you would say "no, it is no difficulty for God." However, some people have thought (and still think) that God could raise someone if their bones were intact, but not if cremated or consumed by beasts. "Death and hell and the sea" covers all bases, it's a way of stating that all the dead are raised without exception.

​

What I didn't understand is the following.

are claimed by all sorts of sources

 

[Derf]

I just want to point out that this is a most excellent post. [MENTION=2801]way 2 go[/MENTION] addressed each of my points very clearly, gave applicable scripture for his views, and explained why the scriptures apply. You can't ask for better than that!!

I might not agree with all of his conclusions, but it's not because he didn't give me good reason to agree.

And I was persuaded by some of his arguments.

Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Luk 16:24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.'

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.

not outside of scripture Jesus tells us
1 rich man died
2 rich man buried , therefore body in the ground
3 rich man in Hades & fire therefore has to be his spirit or soul can't be his body
4 rich man is talking to Abraham who is dead & buried can't be Abraham's body either has to be his spirit

now
Rev 20:13 tells us that there are people that are raised from Hades which means there
has to be people in Hades

people are buried in graves & the Sea not in Hades



There is
1 spiritual death Mat 8:22 Mat 22:32 Luk 15:32
2 physical death Mat 8:22
3 there is alive yet dead Rev 20:12 Luk 16:30
4 death as a place Rev 20:13
5 death as a person Rev 6:8

Jesus already told us what is in Hades the rest might be open for debate but not Hades.




obviously he has not been judged since judgement day has not occurred :
did you miss that he is in Hades which will be thrown into the lake of fire after judgement day ?

This last point is one that is interesting to me. I would suggest that there is evidence of a judgment that already occurred--otherwise he would not be in torment. Does God punish unjustly? Does punishment come before judgment? If he's tormented in the flame, is that different from torment in the lake of fire? If you say "yes", how do you know? Is it not from this one story only? And since there is no mention of future judgment in the story, and an obvious indication that the rich man wanted to save his brother from this particular judgment (Luk 16:28), it's an extrapolation based on preconceptions to say there is more judgment to follow. I think [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] gave a good response when he said that there is no mention of spirits at all in the rich man/Lazarus story, but there IS mention of things that we only associate with functional bodies.

If it is true that the rich man had a tongue, and Lazarus had fingers, is it possible that the story is future-looking? And that judgment has already happened? Remember that only the rich man is said to be in Hades, depending on how the passage is read. Remember that he looked up to see Abraham and Lazarus. So maybe Hades is already in the lake of fire. It would be strange time warp, but if a person dies without any consciousness whatsoever until he is resurrected, it would fit the idea that the rich man found himself tormented in a hot Hades.

I looked at every reference to Sheol and Hades I could find in the old and new testaments, and the only one that had any kind of fiery torment was this one. Except possibly Rev 20:14, where Hades is thrown into the lake of fire. Are we sure we aren't making too much of the description in this story, which is obviously trying to give people a message about what is required to make people repent (not even someone returning from death).

I can even give a reason for the names of Abraham and Lazarus used in this potential parable. Abraham's because the target of Jesus' story was those who trusted in their descent from Abraham for salvation, and Lazarus because, despite Abraham not being merciful enough to allow Lazarus to come back from the dead, Jesus WAS that merciful (John 11:43). And He was proved right--that the "brothers" of the rich man were not impressed, but desired to kill Lazarus to keep the witness of one that came back from the dead from having any good effect. (John 12:10)

 

[Rosenritter]

What I didn't understand is the following.

are claimed by all sorts of sources

Consider it as poetic then. The sea doesn't really keep any dead any more than the dirt or the atmosphere does. Resurrection is the miracle of God and there's no possible way to thwart the resurrection to make it impossible for him. That's what it's saying.

 

[Rosenritter]

I just want to point out that this is a most excellent post. @way 2 go addressed each of my points very clearly, gave applicable scripture for his views, and explained why the scriptures apply. You can't ask for better than that!!

I might not agree with all of his conclusions, but it's not because he didn't give me good reason to agree.

And I was persuaded by some of his arguments.



This last point is one that is interesting to me. I would suggest that there is evidence of a judgment that already occurred--otherwise he would not be in torment. Does God punish unjustly? Does punishment come before judgment? If he's tormented in the flame, is that different from torment in the lake of fire? If you say "yes", how do you know? Is it not from this one story only? And since there is no mention of future judgment in the story, and an obvious indication that the rich man wanted to save his brother from this particular judgment (Luk 16:28), it's an extrapolation based on preconceptions to say there is more judgment to follow. I think @Rosenritter gave a good response when he said that there is no mention of spirits at all in the rich man/Lazarus story, but there IS mention of things that we only associate with functional bodies.

If it is true that the rich man had a tongue, and Lazarus had fingers, is it possible that the story is future-looking? And that judgment has already happened? Remember that only the rich man is said to be in Hades, depending on how the passage is read. Remember that he looked up to see Abraham and Lazarus. So maybe Hades is already in the lake of fire. It would be strange time warp, but if a person dies without any consciousness whatsoever until he is resurrected, it would fit the idea that the rich man found himself tormented in a hot Hades.

If this was a setting meant to reflect the judgment of the dead in the lake of fire, then it would be a prophecy, and not a historical account.

1) It cannot be a prophecy because the man has living brothers
2) It cannot be literal event because the judgment does not occur until Christ returns

I looked at every reference to Sheol and Hades I could find in the old and new testaments, and the only one that had any kind of fiery torment was this one. Except possibly Rev 20:14, where Hades is thrown into the lake of fire. Are we sure we aren't making too much of the description in this story, which is obviously trying to give people a message about what is required to make people repent (not even someone returning from death).

If Jesus meant to refer to a gentile concept of the underworld for purpose of illustrating a parable, what word would he have used?

I can even give a reason for the names of Abraham and Lazarus used in this potential parable. Abraham's because the target of Jesus' story was those who trusted in their descent from Abraham for salvation, and Lazarus because, despite Abraham not being merciful enough to allow Lazarus to come back from the dead, Jesus WAS that merciful (John 11:43). And He was proved right--that the "brothers" of the rich man were not impressed, but desired to kill Lazarus to keep the witness of one that came back from the dead from having any good effect. (John 12:10)

Genesis 35:23 KJV
(23) The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:

1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Issachar
6. Zebulun

Genesis 49:10-11 KJV
(10) The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
(11) Binding his foal unto the vine, and his as'ss colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

There's only one character in this story of whom was not already directly named. Abraham has a name. Lazarus has a name. Each of these names has significance within this story. But who was it that called Abraham "father" and had five brothers and is described as dressed in purple and fine linen? Whom would the Pharisees identify with and what would this brother represent?

 

[Jacob]

Consider it as poetic then. The sea doesn't really keep any dead any more than the dirt or the atmosphere does. Resurrection is the miracle of God and there's no possible way to thwart the resurrection to make it impossible for him. That's what it's saying.

Maybe.

 

[Derf]

If this was a setting meant to reflect the judgment of the dead in the lake of fire, then it would be a prophecy, and not a historical account.

1) It cannot be a prophecy because the man has living brothers
2) It cannot be literal event because the judgment does not occur until Christ returns

You mean it can't be a prophecy about the final judgment because of the living (not already in torment) brothers. Lots of other prophecies are about men that have brothers. Yes, that's a flaw in my suggestion.

I'm not sure your second complaint has merit, except if you assume your view is correct. I'm making approximately the same assumption in mine, but both of our assumptions are assuming our view, and thus we can't use that to say our views are correct. Thus, if it is a literal event, then it forcefully describes a scene where the rich man is being punished in an intermediate torment prior to resurrection, judgment, and final torment. I think you have to come back to this story after you've established the state of the dead. By itself, I don't think this story should be considered sufficient to describe the state of the dead, and the point I was making is that it is usually used, by itself, to do that. Part of the reason is the one you use--that it is a parable and not literal.

If Jesus meant to refer to a gentile concept of the underworld for purpose of illustrating a parable, what word would he have used?

I don't know..."Bosom of Plato", perhaps? If he was trying to refer to a jewish concept of the underworld for any purpose whatsoever, what word would He have used? My guess is "Sheol", which the Greek would have rendered as "Hades", as here:
[Act 2:27 NKJV] For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

Genesis 35:23 KJV
(23) The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:

1. Reuben
2. Simeon
3. Levi
4. Judah
5. Issachar
6. Zebulun

Genesis 49:10-11 KJV
(10) The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
(11) Binding his foal unto the vine, and his as'ss colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes:

There's only one character in this story of whom was not already directly named. Abraham has a name. Lazarus has a name. Each of these names has significance within this story. But who was it that called Abraham "father" and had five brothers and is described as dressed in purple and fine linen? Whom would the Pharisees identify with and what would this brother represent?

I think your assignment of the rich man to Judah is an interesting interpretation, but certainly not the only one. If purple were only for actual rulers, Lydia might have had some trouble staying in business.

I'm also not sure if the Shiloh thing was really a prophecy of the messiah. After all, the scepter departed from Judah, by God's own hand, when Saul was made king. I'm kind of thinking "Shiloh" came when the Israelites re-entered Canaan, and their religious and government seat was at Shiloh--Josh 18:1. I know that sounds rather mundane for Jacob's prophecy, but it fits the data better. This would have little to say about your interpretation of the (possible) parable, as there are plenty of verses about David's lineage, and by extension, his tribe, ruling. Although at Jesus' time, David's descendants were all that noteworthy, which fact also calls into question the scepter Jacob mentioned.

But a ruling class would definitely fit the bill. Pharisees were in a seat of power, along with Sadducees, Priests, Herodians, Scribes/Lawyers, and...I only need one more...Essenes?

The connection I grew up on is a fairly decent one--that of the number "6" signifying man. Thus he was pleading for the rest of mankind. But what does the color purple mean? Humanism--the desire to have man as the ultimate authority rather than God? Or even just prestige--being noticed by people. The main thing seems to be the riches and honor, not the attachment to Abraham. Some previous verses in the chapter:
[Luk 16:1 KJV] And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
[Luk 16:13 KJV] No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
[Luk 16:14 KJV] And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
[Luk 16:15 KJV] And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

There are other verses that are not talking about riches and prestige, but the chapter seems to be more about the riches than about Jewish reliance on Abraham for salvation. Neither is there any suggestion about what the other five are that would make us think of Judah's brothers. The number "5" is hardly enough.

So, I can't see the point of trying to make the 5 the brothers of Judah, nor why that somehow requires Jesus to allude to Greek myths of the underworld.

 

[Rosenritter]

You mean it can't be a prophecy about the final judgment because of the living (not already in torment) brothers. Lots of other prophecies are about men that have brothers. Yes, that's a flaw in my suggestion.

The assumption is that the dead are judged and then punished in that order. I think that is a fair assumption from our innate sense of justice, which is ultimately derived from God. For example, can you think of anyplace in the scripture where someone is punished before being tried for a crime? There's the example of Jesus... who was being unjustly tried in an illegal trial, which is the exception that proves the rules. Anyplace else in the law someone is tried and sentenced before punishment.

Thus, following that assumption, if there is a punishment, the judgment must have already occurred. We know when the judgment comes from specific prophecy, at the return of Christ, which (most of us can agree) is not yet.

I'm not sure your second complaint has merit, except if you assume your view is correct. I'm making approximately the same assumption in mine, but both of our assumptions are assuming our view, and thus we can't use that to say our views are correct. Thus, if it is a literal event, then it forcefully describes a scene where the rich man is being punished in an intermediate torment prior to resurrection, judgment, and final torment.

See the previous note about punishment following judgment.

I think you have to come back to this story after you've established the state of the dead. By itself, I don't think this story should be considered sufficient to describe the state of the dead, and the point I was making is that it is usually used, by itself, to do that. Part of the reason is the one you use--that it is a parable and not literal.

The parable meaning is useful on two points: first, for those that protest that "it is not a parable" and second, because the meaning of the parable is relevant for its intended meaning as well. You can derive (and support) the same meaning from other passages and parables but it was placed there for good reason also.

I don't know..."Bosom of Plato", perhaps? If he was trying to refer to a jewish concept of the underworld for any purpose whatsoever, what word would He have used? My guess is "Sheol", which the Greek would have rendered as "Hades", as here:
[Act 2:27 NKJV] For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.

Just to make note of this here, the NKJV Acts 2:27 "Hades" is not a good translation. When we say "Hades" in English (capitalized H) it is a proper noun associated with the pagan hell concepts and deities. "Hell" (or "hell") is a generic concept that does not necessitate an underworld. In the case of Acts 2:27 (where hades is used in place of sheol) the word "hell" is more appropriate, as sheol is a Hebrew word quoted from the Old Testament that is never used in the sense of a conscious underworld.

I think your assignment of the rich man to Judah is an interesting interpretation, but certainly not the only one. If purple were only for actual rulers, Lydia might have had some trouble staying in business.

I think it is a stronger interpretation because the keys for the symbols are preserved in scripture itself: for example, we don't need to wonder about the symbolic indication of "dogs" as applied to a class of people thanks to Matt 15:26, Mark 7:27, and Luke 16:21. If the beggar is the gentile portion of humanity, then this easily points that the other man is the other portion.

So if Gentile on one side, what lies on the other? Gentile vs. _______. Suspicions are filled in by applying the details provided for identification.

I'm also not sure if the Shiloh thing was really a prophecy of the messiah. After all, the scepter departed from Judah, by God's own hand, when Saul was made king. I'm kind of thinking "Shiloh" came when the Israelites re-entered Canaan, and their religious and government seat was at Shiloh--Josh 18:1. I know that sounds rather mundane for Jacob's prophecy, but it fits the data better. This would have little to say about your interpretation of the (possible) parable, as there are plenty of verses about David's lineage, and by extension, his tribe, ruling. Although at Jesus' time, David's descendants were all that noteworthy, which fact also calls into question the scepter Jacob mentioned.

The prophecy said it would not depart, but not necessarily when it would begin. Wouldn't the scepter prophecy have started with David? As you noted, the first king was named Saul and he was of Benjamin.

But a ruling class would definitely fit the bill. Pharisees were in a seat of power, along with Sadducees, Priests, Herodians, Scribes/Lawyers, and...I only need one more...Essenes?

I don't think the Essene were much of a power... more of a fringe element of Judaism that only comes into play because their unusual Passover observance seemed to have been arranged specifically for Jesus (with the meatless Passover meal on the specific weekday.)

The connection I grew up on is a fairly decent one--that of the number "6" signifying man. Thus he was pleading for the rest of mankind. But what does the color purple mean? Humanism--the desire to have man as the ultimate authority rather than God? Or even just prestige--being noticed by people. The main thing seems to be the riches and honor, not the attachment to Abraham. Some previous verses in the chapter:

I am not sure that the Pharisees (his audience) would have drawn the connection of 6 representing all of humanity (and wouldn't the beggar also be part of humanity?) ... but they were rather conscious that they were children of Abraham (Matt 3:9, Luke 3:8, John 8:39, Acts 7:2).

Basically, I mean that the parable would have to strike a nerve and at least be understood by some because it wouldn't have much an effect if it went entirely over their heads. When you look at the way he spoke to the Pharisees on other occasions, it seemed to rely that they would recognize specific quotes of scripture. For example, "I have said, ye are gods" (Psalm 82) made them furious only because they knew the rest of the Psalm in context to his previous claim that he was the judge of all men, "ye shall die like men" ... and "Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations."

[Luk 16:1 KJV] And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.
[Luk 16:13 KJV] No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
[Luk 16:14 KJV] And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
[Luk 16:15 KJV] And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

There are other verses that are not talking about riches and prestige, but the chapter seems to be more about the riches than about Jewish reliance on Abraham for salvation. Neither is there any suggestion about what the other five are that would make us think of Judah's brothers. The number "5" is hardly enough.

Wouldn't the Gentile (Lazarus) be the perfect illustration of that which was lowly esteemed among themselves?

So, I can't see the point of trying to make the 5 the brothers of Judah, nor why that somehow requires Jesus to allude to Greek myths of the underworld.

1) The Jew no longer has special status above the Gentile. The temple is destroyed, no more prophets arise. As a people they had good things in their lifetime, special favor under a covenant with their fathers, but that has become no more. As of the sign of the prophet Jonah, a greater than Jonah preached, and they did not repent, and their city was destroyed. Jonah walked for 3 days and preached destruction in 40 days, Jesus preached for 3 years and the city was destroyed in 40 years. The Jews receive the punishment associated with the Gentile nations

2) The Gentile is grafted in to the promise of the seed of Abraham. If ye be Christ's, then ye are Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:9). They trusted in their riches of their inheritance from Abraham, but God knows the heart. The Gentiles are now welcomed with the inheritance that was thought to be reserved only for the Jew.

.

 

[way 2 go]

I just want to point out that this is a most excellent post. @way 2 go addressed each of my points very clearly, gave applicable scripture for his views, and explained why the scriptures apply. You can't ask for better than that!!

I might not agree with all of his conclusions, but it's not because he didn't give me good reason to agree.

And I was persuaded by some of his arguments.

thank you

This last point is one that is interesting to me. I would suggest that there is evidence of a judgment that already occurred--otherwise he would not be in torment. Does God punish unjustly? Does punishment come before judgment?

you are correct the rich man Abraham & Lazarus were judged and the verse you quoted says ...
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
the verse dose not say judgement day

Herod was judged then died
Act 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give God the glory. And he was eaten by worms and gave up the spirit.

God judges all the time

Joh 3:18 He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God.

If he's tormented in the flame, is that different from torment in the lake of fire? If you say "yes", how do you know? Is it not from this one story only? And since there is no mention of future judgment in the story, and an obvious indication that the rich man wanted to save his brother from this particular judgment (Luk 16:28), it's an extrapolation based on preconceptions to say there is more judgment to follow. I think @Rosenritter gave a good response when he said that there is no mention of spirits at all in the rich man/Lazarus story, but there IS mention of things that we only associate with functional bodies.

Hades will be thrown into the lake of fire after judgement day

Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

If it is true that the rich man had a tongue, and Lazarus had fingers, is it possible that the story is future-looking? And that judgment has already happened? Remember that only the rich man is said to be in Hades, depending on how the passage is read. Remember that he looked up to see Abraham and Lazarus. So maybe Hades is already in the lake of fire. It would be strange time warp, but if a person dies without any consciousness whatsoever until he is resurrected, it would fit the idea that the rich man found himself tormented in a hot Hades.

Lazarus is told past tense & Rev 20:1-6 is future

I looked at every reference to Sheol and Hades I could find in the old and new testaments, and the only one that had any kind of fiery torment was this one. Except possibly Rev 20:14, where Hades is thrown into the lake of fire. Are we sure we aren't making too much of the description in this story, which is obviously trying to give people a message about what is required to make people repent (not even someone returning from death).

well considering the source is Jesus the creator of Hades, Jesus would know what he is talking about.

I can even give a reason for the names of Abraham and Lazarus used in this potential parable. Abraham's because the target of Jesus' story was those who trusted in their descent from Abraham for salvation, and Lazarus because, despite Abraham not being
merciful enough to allow Lazarus to come back from the dead, Jesus WAS that merciful (John 11:43). And He was proved right--that the "brothers" of the rich man were not impressed, but desired to kill Lazarus to keep the witness of one that came back from the dead from having any good effect. (John 12:10)

:nono:

one mercy was for the drop of water Luk 16:24
two the rich man wanted to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers about Hades Luk 16:28
three they wanted to put Lazarus to death because people were believing in Jesus Joh 12:10-11
not because of a warning of Hades

 

[Rosenritter]

you are correct the rich man Abraham & Lazarus were judged and the verse you quoted says ...
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
the verse dose not say judgement day

In the context of the judgment of the dead, Jesus seems to indicate that this is a time yet to come. This is in agreement with earlier revelation that the dead (even the wicked dead) are at peace (Job 3:17).

John 5:25-29 KJV
(25) Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
(26) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
(27) And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
(28) Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
(29) And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Job 3:16-18 KJV
(16) Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
(17) There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
(18) There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.

Herod was judged then died
Act 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give God the glory. And he was eaten by worms and gave up the spirit.

God judges all the time

But doesn't it say in this example that Herod died? It doesn't say that he was killed and then tormented after he was dead.

one mercy was for the drop of water Luk 16:24
two the rich man wanted to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers about Hades Luk 16:28
three they wanted to put Lazarus to death because people were believing in Jesus Joh 12:10-11
not because of a warning of Hades

How does a spirit find comfort in a drop of water?

 

[Derf]

thank you


you are correct the rich man Abraham & Lazarus were judged and the verse you quoted says ...
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
the verse dose not say judgement day

Herod was judged then died
Act 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give God the glory. And he was eaten by worms and gave up the spirit.

God judges all the time

For the same offenses? Over and over again?

Lazarus is told past tense & Rev 20:1-6 is future

If we're basing something on the tense of the passage, Rev 20 is also told in the past tense, as is Rev 21. We know Rev 20 is future from other passages in Revelation, but we don't have that kind of thing for the Lazarus story.

well considering the source is Jesus the creator of Hades, Jesus would know what he is talking about.

And related to the guy that inspired all the other references to Sheol/Hades. The question we need to ask is whether the descriptions conflict, and if they do, why? [MENTION=18255]Rosenritter[/MENTION] has pointed out some of the conflicting verses, where those in Sheol are said to be at peace/rest. These seem important, and not to be glossed over.

This can't be considered a case where Jesus just provides more information that was previously lacking, but instead He is contradicting information already provided, assuming 1. they are talking about the same place, and 2. they are talking about the same time period.

Re. 1) The standard line is that "Sheol" is the same as "Hades", and that any change came only after JEsus went to the cross, so since you insist that the story was told in the past tense, you have to somehow de-conflict the differences in description. Are the folks in Sheol at peace, or are they in torment?

Re. 2) Well, that's the present topic, isn't it? If we allow for Jesus' story of Lazarus to be future, it resolves the conflict of the state of the dead (peace or torment), but it raises other time conflicts.

But all might be resolvable if we allow for artistic license in story-telling. That's one thing that makes the parable interpretation attractive. The other is the structure, which matches the story told just prior in the same chapter: "There was a certain rich man..."

:nono:

one mercy was for the drop of water Luk 16:24
two the rich man wanted to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers about Hades Luk 16:28
three they wanted to put Lazarus to death because people were believing in Jesus Joh 12:10-11
not because of a warning of Hades

It's not against the rules to request mercy for another person, is it?

Of course they wanted to kill him because people were following Jesus, but if we can connect the story in any way whatsoever to salvation (and I think salvation from fiery torment is worthy of consideration), then not only did the Pharisees reject the message of the man sent back from the dead (which is exactly what Abraham predicted: [Luk 16:31] "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'"), they also wanted to kill the man who came back from the dead--to keep him from warning others of the torment awaiting them.

Very reminiscent of
[Mat 23:13 NKJV] "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in [yourselves], nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.
[Mat 23:15 NKJV] "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.
[Mat 23:33 NKJV] "Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?


The chronology of these things would be interesting to confirm, but I believe Jesus told the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man AFTER He raised Lazarus from the dead, since this is in a previous chapter: [Luk 13:22 NKJV] And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem.
[Luk 13:33 NKJV] "Nevertheless I must journey today, tomorrow, and the [day] following; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem.

Whether the raising of Lazarus was before or after the story of Lazarus, it seems unlikely the Pharisees would miss a connection between the two events.

 

[Rosenritter]

Of course they wanted to kill him because people were following Jesus, but if we can connect the story in any way whatsoever to salvation (and I think salvation from fiery torment is worthy of consideration), then not only did the Pharisees reject the message of the man sent back from the dead (which is exactly what Abraham predicted: [Luk 16:31] "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'"), they also wanted to kill the man who came back from the dead--to keep him from warning others of the torment awaiting them.

Just to raise the bar (the standard of proof) a notch higher, doesn't Abraham indicate (in this parable) that sending back someone from the dead would not be of additional persuasion because that message is already seen in Moses and the prophets? If there was a new message or new revelation that would seem to justify sending a messenger, would it not?

So while we should know that scripture cannot contradict other scripture, we also should realize that whatever message or warning is being conveyed by Lazarus (or by the parable of Lazarus) cannot be new revelation either. The meaning must be already taught in the Hebrew scripture.

Psalms 2:12 KJV
(12) Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

Zechariah 11:10-12 KJV
(10) And I took my staff, even Beauty, and cut it asunder, that I might break my covenant which I had made with all the people.
(11) And it was broken in that day: and so the poor of the flock that waited upon me knew that it was the word of the LORD.
(12) And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

Isaiah 28:14-16 KJV
(14) Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
(15) Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
(16) Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Isaiah 60:1-3 KJV
(1) Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee.
(2) For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.
(3) And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising.

The message of the coming Messiah and the end of Judah's covenant, all this and more is already contained in Moses and the prophets. Whatever the meaning of that parable, it must not only be in agreement with the previous scripture, but must already be revealed in previous scripture.

Luke 24:25-27 KJV
(25) Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
(26) Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
(27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

 

[eleos]

1 CORINTHIANS 15:22 For as in Adam all die (our earthly death), even so in Christ shall all be made alive (1st resurrection).
1 CORINTHIANS 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep (all are asleep in the grave awaiting resurrection), but we shall all be changed, (we will be made immortal at the first resurrection)


1 Thessalonians 4

The Return of the Lord

13Brothers, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you will not grieve like the rest, who are without hope. 14For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, we also believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him.

15By the word of the Lord, we declare to you that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will be the first to rise. 17After that, we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will always be with the Lord.


18Therefore encourage one another with these words.

 

[way 2 go]

For the same offenses? Over and over again?

Act 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give God the glory. And he was eaten by worms and gave up the spirit.

herod was judged & died & went to Hades & will be raised from Hades on judgement day & go to the lake of fire

If we're basing something on the tense of the passage, Rev 20 is also told in the past tense, as is Rev 21. We know Rev 20 is future from other passages in Revelation, but we don't have that kind of thing for the Lazarus story.

luke 16:19-31 is past tense no indicators of future tense like revelation

Rev 4:1 ... "Come up here, and I will show you what must happen after this."

And related to the guy that inspired all the other references to Sheol/Hades. The question we need to ask is whether the descriptions conflict, and if they do, why? @Rosenritter has pointed out some of the conflicting verses, where those in Sheol are said to be at peace/rest. These seem important, and not to be glossed over.

This can't be considered a case where Jesus just provides more information that was previously lacking, but instead He is contradicting information already provided, assuming 1. they are talking about the same place, and 2. they are talking about the same time period.

no conflict, just your misunderstanding
Luk 16:29 Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them.

Re. 1) The standard line is that "Sheol" is the same as "Hades", and that any change came only after JEsus went to the cross, so since you insist that the story was told in the past tense, you have to somehow de-conflict the differences in description. Are the folks in Sheol at peace, or are they in torment?

are they in the fire or with Abraham

Re. 2) Well, that's the present topic, isn't it? If we allow for Jesus' story of Lazarus to be future, it resolves the conflict of the state of the dead (peace or torment), but it raises other time conflicts.

2 sides one place
Luk 16:26 And besides all this, there is a great chasm fixed between you and us; so that they desiring to pass from here to you cannot, nor can they pass over to us from there.

But all might be resolvable if we allow for artistic license in story-telling. That's one thing that makes the parable interpretation attractive. The other is the structure, which matches the story told just prior in the same chapter: "There was a certain rich man..."

no conflict

It's not against the rules to request mercy for another person, is it?

Jer 15:1 Then the LORD said to me, "Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my heart would not turn toward this people. Send them out of my sight, and let them go!
:idunno:

Of course they wanted to kill him because people were following Jesus, but if we can connect the story in any way whatsoever to salvation (and I think salvation from fiery torment is worthy of consideration), then not only did the Pharisees reject the message of the man sent back from the dead (which is exactly what Abraham predicted: [Luk 16:31] "But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.'"), they also wanted to kill the man who came back from the dead--to keep him from warning others of the torment awaiting them.

:nono:
they wanted to kill him because Jesus raised him from the dead he was a walking miracle & a testament to Jesus
not because he warned people of Hades.

 

[Rosenritter]

Act 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give God the glory. And he was eaten by worms and gave up the spirit.

herod was judged & died & went to Hades & will be raised from Hades on judgement day & go to the lake of fire

So he will have a fair trial and then hanged until dead? Erm.... burned and burned again and again? Why is he raised at all?

 

[Derf]

Act 12:23 And immediately the angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give God the glory. And he was eaten by worms and gave up the spirit.

herod was judged & died & went to Hades & will be raised from Hades on judgement day & go to the lake of fire


luke 16:19-31 is past tense no indicators of future tense like revelation

Rev 4:1 ... "Come up here, and I will show you what must happen after this."



no conflict, just your misunderstanding
Luk 16:29 Abraham said to him, They have Moses and the Prophets, let them hear them.


are they in the fire or with Abraham

2 sides one place
Luk 16:26 And besides all this, there is a great chasm fixed between you and us; so that they desiring to pass from here to you cannot, nor can they pass over to us from there.




no conflict

So you retain the idea that Sheol has (or had) two compartments. Can you find that anywhere else? I've read Jewish commentators that say the concept of a storage place for souls is lacking in the Old Testament.

And what are maggots eating in Sheol????
[Isa 14:11] 'Your pomp [and] the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out [as your bed] beneath you And worms are your covering.'

:nono:
they wanted to kill him because Jesus raised him from the dead he was a walking miracle & a testament to Jesus
not because he warned people of Hades.

See? Now you've gone and undone all the good work you did before, and fell back into just repeating yourself.

Of course there's a conflict. The Old Testament says something different than this story does, and you admitted it when you said

well considering the source is Jesus the creator of Hades, Jesus would know what he is talking about

The implication is that the Old Testament didn't know what they are talking about. Is that what you are saying?

 

[way 2 go]

So you retain the idea that Sheol has (or had) two compartments. Can you find that anywhere else? I've read Jewish commentators that say the concept of a storage place for souls is lacking in the Old Testament.

2
sheh-ole', sheh-ole'
From H7592; hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranian retreat), including its accessories and inmates:

And what are maggots eating in Sheol????
[Isa 14:11] 'Your pomp [and] the music of your harps Have been brought down to Sheol; Maggots are spread out [as your bed] beneath you And worms are your covering.'

physical body
spirit to Hades body buried in grave

See? Now you've gone and undone all the good work you did before, and fell back into just repeating yourself.

Of course there's a conflict. The Old Testament says something different than this story does, and you admitted it when you said The implication is that the Old Testament didn't know what they are talking about. Is that what you are saying?

:nono:
the old testament just said Sheol & was understood.
Jesus gave us the description of Hades which people want but don't believe when they are given it

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.



Hades will one day give up the dead spirits that are in it

Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them,

 

[Rosenritter]

2
sheh-ole', sheh-ole'
From H7592; hades or the world of the dead (as if a subterranian retreat), including its accessories and inmates:

Way 2 Go, that citation only shows how Strong's concordance colors the word, but even with that prejudice it doesn't say anything about "two" (or more) compartments, let alone saying that the associated items (or inmates) are conscious, living, or aware.

But you might be able to find that in the writings of various commentators though. Or a bible dictionary. Anyone can write a commentary, concordance, or bible dictionary and insert their own theology.

http://www.studybibleforum.com/htm_...show_user_id=729d428c5a0d468b0942a7c0dfcd489d

According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, 'HADES...an intermediate state between death and resurrection, divided into two parts one the abode of the blest and the other of the lost' (emphasis added).

Just thought I'd help out.

 

[Jacob]

On if there is a second resurrection the first caller asks here at The Narrow Path with Steve Gregg.

Archived Program (audio).

From the September 7th Show (archived programs).

 

[way 2 go]

Way 2 Go, that citation only shows how Strong's concordance colors the word, but even with that prejudice it doesn't say anything about "two" (or more) compartments, let alone saying that the associated items (or inmates) are conscious, living, or aware.

But you might be able to find that in the writings of various commentators though. Or a bible dictionary. Anyone can write a commentary, concordance, or bible dictionary and insert their own theology.


Just thought I'd help out.

:think:

Luk 16:22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried,
Luk 16:23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.
Luk 16:24 And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.'

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.

not outside of scripture Jesus tells us
1 rich man died
2 rich man buried , therefore body in the ground
3 rich man in Hades & fire therefore has to be his spirit or soul can't be his body
4 rich man is talking to Abraham who is dead & buried can't be Abraham's body either has to be his spirit

now
Rev 20:13 tells us that there are people that are raised from Hades which means there
has to be people in Hades

peoples physical bodies are buried in graves & the Sea not in the fire of Hades