The nature and destiny of man

It is not surprising that most people in Christendom believe that they have an immortal soul residing within them and that “it will never die” – which is the meaning of the term “immortal.” This is a longstanding “tradition” in most church bodies; Roman Catholic, Protestantism, Baptist, Methodists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc. Jesus started His Church with inspired men setting it up and teaching its beliefs. But nowhere did they teach that man has an immortal soul residing within one’s body. As time progressed, un-inspired men introduced the pagan idea of an “entity” residing within one’s body that will never die, and they called it a “soul.” The origin of this teaching started around 400 BC, and by the time Jesus was born it had gained an entrance into the thoughts of Jews. But to the rest of the world, it gained the upper hand; most citizens of the Roman Empire had accepted it as an infallible belief. This belief today has become a “tradition” that is thought to be a teaching of Jesus and His apostles.

In this post you will read why many regard this traditionalist belief of an “immortal soul” to be against the nature of man as taught in the Bible, just as we also do with respect to the ultimate destiny of the unredeemed. Most churches teach what is commonly referred to these days as the Traditionalist position, whereas my views are more in line with what is called the Conditionalist perspective. The Traditionalist position promotes the idea that men inherently possess immortality, in the form of an immortal soul, which will immediately enter a Hadean realm at the moment of physical death. These conscious souls will then either experience happiness in a Paradise or horror in a place of fiery torment. At the return of Christ (Parousia) these souls will be placed back into their resurrected bodies and a judgment will occur. The redeemed will be with the Lord forever, and the unredeemed will be tortured in Hell without end. This is somewhat simplified, but true nonetheless.

The Conditionalist position, on the other hand, maintains that the biblical view of the nature of man is holistic in nature. Man does not possess a soul; man is a living soul (Genesis 2:7). Man, by nature, is mortal, but unto the redeemed a promise of immortality has been given. Thus, immortality is conditional, not the inherent right of all men. This immortal life is in the Lord Jesus Christ. At physical death both the unredeemed and the redeemed sleep in the dust of the ground waiting for the day of resurrection. On that day they shall be called forth from their graves. The redeemed dead shall be lifted up to meet the Lord in the air, and removed to a place of safety while God's fiery judgment rains down upon this earth and its wicked inhabitants (2 Peter 3:7 ff). The unredeemed will not be given immortality, but will be consumed by the outpouring of God's fiery wrath, for our God is a consuming fire. They will be utterly destroyed; exterminated. The redeemed, however, will "put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:52 ff) and will then dwell in the new heavens and earth with their God.

Thus, immortal life is a GIFT from God which will be bestowed only upon those who "seek for ... immortality" (Romans 2:7), and not upon all men indiscriminately. We are informed that Jesus Christ "brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10). I find no place in Scripture where eternal (immortal) LIFE is promised to those who have spurned God Almighty; rather, their fate is consistently declared to be DEATH. "The wages of sin is DEATH, but the free GIFT of God is eternal LIFE in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

Had Christ not been raised victoriously over sin and death on the third day, then ALL men (even those who have died "in Him") would "have perished" (1 Corinthians 15:18). However, HIS victory at His resurrection assures us of OUR victory at our resurrection on the last day. This is clearly why the early disciples are characterized as going about "preaching Jesus and the resurrection" (Acts 17:18). They proclaimed not just His resurrection, but also ours. The ultimate hope of the Christian for eternal life is NOT in some ghost-like entity which is trapped inside our mortal bodies and which flies off to greater life at the moment of our physical demise (this is the teaching of paganism and can be substantiated by historical writings), rather the hope of the Christian is in the resurrection from the dead. The “immortal soul” teaching embraced by Traditionalism actually undermines the very foundation of the Christian faith, and makes the resurrection an unnecessary absurdity.

When God breathed the "breath of life" into our mortal dust-of-the-earth bodies we BECAME "living beings/souls" (Genesis 2:7). This in no way teaches that God put some "immortal spirit being" inside this physical body. After all, the same exact words are used of all the other life-forms on the planet ... bug, bird, bull and beast. God breathed the breath of life into animals also, according to Scripture, and they too became "living beings/souls." Indeed, the phrase "living soul" is used many times more often in Scripture of the other creatures than of man. Again, the biblical view of the nature of man is what is called holistic. The view of Traditionalists, however, is pagan dualism. This latter view comes more from Plato than from God, a fact to which Traditionalists seems woefully oblivious.

With regard to the two great eternal destinies of man, notice just a couple of key passages. "God has GIVEN us eternal life, and this life is IN HIS SON. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life" (1 John 5:11-12). Our everlasting life — our immortality — is fully conditional. It hinges upon being IN CHRIST JESUS. The apostle John says that IF we have the Son, THEN we have the life. IF we do NOT have the Son, then we do NOT have the life! Traditionalists, however, declares the lie of Satan, rather than the Truth of God: Traditionalists say you DO have the life! God can't take life from you. You are just as immortal as HE is, even though Paul declares that He "ALONE possesses immortality" (1 Timothy 6:16). Thus, Traditionalists teach that the unredeemed will have eternal life just as the righteous will have eternal life. BOTH will live forever!! — or so says the Traditionalist.

The Traditionalists, to prove their false doctrine, must literally reinterpret and redefine clear biblical terms. They will declare of the unredeemed, "Of course they still have life! It's just life away from God's presence; it's life in misery; it's life in torment — but it is LIFE nevertheless!" Traditionalists, therefore, declares that death is really an illusion, and that the person is actually more alive when dead. The Traditionalists redefine "death" to mean "life." It is characterized as a "life of loss" (rather than loss of life), but it is LIFE just the same (a fact they can't seem to comprehend). Traditionalists declares that man is INCAPABLE of ever truly experiencing loss of life. We CAN'T fully die. Why? Because we are just as immortal as God. Life is our inherent right, and we WILL live ... either with or without Him. What arrogance!

That certainly does sound a lot like the original lie of Satan to Eve, doesn't it? "You surely shall NOT die!" (Genesis 3:4). Then the crafty serpent said to her, "You will be like God!" In actuality, Traditionalists are spreading the same false doctrine today (the "gospel of the serpent") when they uphold their unscriptural dogma.

Remember the passage which some have called “the golden verse" or the gospel in a nutshell": John 3:16? "For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whosoever believes in Him should NOT PERISH, but have eternal LIFE." Notice the statement which immediately precedes this: "...whosoever believes may IN HIM have eternal life" (vs. 15). Eternal life (immortality) is ONLY "in Him." That is conditional immortality. Those who do NOT accept the Lord Jesus Christ must receive the "wages" of their decision — DEATH. "For the wages of sin is DEATH, but the free gift of God is eternal LIFE in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 6:23).

What is the ultimate destiny of those who die "in Christ" and sleep in the dust of the ground? They will be called forth from the grave and will "put on immortality." They will then dwell forever in the new heavens and earth. What is the ultimate destiny of those who die outside of Christ? They too will be called forth from the dust of the ground to experience judgment and their sentence. Their fate will be the "second death." They will be executed. It will be an everlasting death; one from which there is no coming back; no future resurrection to life. Once they are dead, they are dead forever!

Traditionalists love to quote Matthew 25:46: "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." What IS that punishment? It is DEATH! The apostle Paul tells us about it in II Thessalonians 1:6–10. The unredeemed “…will pay the PENALTY, eternal destruction…” And, yes, it will be just as enduring as the reward for the righteous. Both will be forever! For just as long as the redeemed are ALIVE, so will the unredeemed be DEAD. God does not sentence the wicked to a never-ending process of dying (as Traditionalists would have you assume from this passage in Mt. 25). If that was so, then the eternal punishment would be an eternal punishing; it would be DYING, not DEATH. The latter is a result, the former a process. The punishment specified in Scripture is DEATH. That result WILL be achieved. In the Traditionalists view, however, it never will be. Thus, Traditionalists have had to basically rewrite God's Word in order to teach their pagan doctrine of everlasting LIFE for the unredeemed.

I’ve been told that by preaching such things as this article does, that I am endangering my faith and salvation by God. The person that told me this was a Roman Catholic clergyman, and he may have had in mind the decree of condemnation hurled at Luther by Pope Leo X who issued a decree which condemned “all those who assert that the soul is mortal…” 140 years ago (1868), Henry Constable responded to a similar Traditionalist statement that he was imperiling his faith. He wrote: “Does it imperial our faith in God? What attribute of his is attacked? His love! Is it the part of love to inflict eternal pain if it can be helped? His mercy! Is it the part of mercy never to be satisfied with the misery of others? His holiness! Is it essential to holiness to keep evil forever in existence? His justice! Can justice only be satisfied with everlasting agonies? No; we do not endanger faith. We strengthen it, by allying it once more with the divine principles of mercy, equity, and justice. It is the Augustinian theory which endangers faith, and has made shipwreck of faith in the case of multitudes, by representing God as a Being of boundless injustice, caprice, and cruelty.” (The Duration and Nature of Future Punishment, page 236.)

I will conclude this article with the concluding remarks of a brother in Christ: Edward Fudge. He brought his lengthy study of this issue to a close, in his internationally acclaimed book, The Fire That Consumes, with these thoughts, which I agree with:

“We do not reject the traditionalist doctrine, therefore, on moral, philosophical, intuitive, judicial or emotional grounds, nor are we much concerned with the arguments of any who do. The only question that matters here is the teaching of Scripture. Does the Word of God teach the eternal conscious torment of the lost? Our modest study fails to show that it does.

We were reared on the traditionalist view -- we accepted it because it was said to rest on the Bible. This closer investigation of the Scriptures indicates that we were mistaken in that assumption. A careful look discovers that both Old and New Testaments teach instead a resurrection of the wicked for the purpose of divine judgment, the fearful anticipation of a consuming fire, irrevocable expulsion from God's presence into a place where there will be weeping and grinding of teeth, such conscious suffering as the divine justice individually requires -- and, finally, the total, everlasting extinction of the wicked with no hope of resurrection, restoration or recovery. Now we stand on that, on the authority of the Word of God.

We have changed once and do not mind changing again, but we were evidently wrong once through lack of careful study and do not wish to repeat the same mistake. Mere assertions and denunciations will not refute the evidence presented in this book, nor will a recital of ecclesiastical tradition. This case rests finally on Scripture. Only Scripture can prove it wrong” (Page 435–436).

Here is what I am working on. It is a sketch of what I believe concerning the future events according to God’s time table. I know this is terribly un-orthodox, but it is a result of my using my brain to do some thinking. Not many will engage me in a discussion of these ideas, because they immediately reject them and relegate them to the dung heap of “exegesis by majority.” “There is nothing new under the sun,” people say. “Otherwide, men a whole lot more intelligent than you would have seen it and proclaimed it.” Another comment I get a lot is, “You are a heretic.” So, here goes. I welcome intelligent comments and feedback, but ridicule and nastiness on anyone’s part will be ignored (I feel Truth Defender has an open mind and heart and will discuss these matters).

What is the meaning of life?

God created man and gave him life according to a grand divine plan. This plan includes a definite timetable of events, or stages for mankind’s development. Among others these phases include this present time period in which we are living, and the next one which is called the kingdom of God. The next period is the one that now commands our attention. Obtaining the assurance of being allowed to live in the kingdom of God should be the most important goal of every living person. This is the very meaning of our present life – to live a life that allows us to lay hold of that guarantee. There is nothing more important than to be living in the next phase of God’s plan for mankind, the kingdom of God, when He establishes it here on this earth.

How does a person secure such an assurance? First, by living a present life that doesn’t preclude one’s entrance into the kingdom. There are many who have lived lives that do not qualify them for admission, but, there are many who have and many who will. Further, an entrance ticket is gained by living a life that calls God’s attention to one’s “having done good.” What constitutes “having done good?” In Acts 10:34-35 Peter said that in every nation he that fears Him and works righteousness is accepted with Him. God clarifies the term, “having done good,” to mean believing in God. This present life will be judged by “Ho Logos,” the expression of God that was put into each person from the beginning. This expression is: knowing right from wrong. We are expected to do what is right and to refrain from doing what is wrong, in good times as well as bad times. Another name for “Ho Logos” is the Son of God, Jesus the Christ, the very expression of the Living God.

There will be two types of life in the kingdom: life and eonian life. The first simply consists of living during that time, and is the only promise or hope God has ever held out to every man; but, the second is more of a “flowing life,” or life that flows from God through those possessing eonian life outward to others. The Bible is filled with descriptions of eonian life, life that flows during the “eon.” The eon is particularly characterized as the time of God’s flowing; He is the flow-er. One obtains this eonian or flowing life by laying hold of its assurance also during this present life. How? By believing on the one who was “sent” or commissioned by God, and believing the record He has given us concerning this “sent” or commissioned one. The Greek word “apostello” translated as “sent,” should more accurately and properly be rendered as “commissioned with authority” to perform a certain act or acts.

A word of clarification is in order here. Many people think of an eon as being a long period of time. It’s true that an eon can take place during a long period of time, but that’s not what the word eon means. Eon means a flow. During God’s kingdom this flow is from the One who flows, the flow-er. A period of time is coming that will be characterized by a flowing, and that time is referred to in Scripture as the Eon (in the Greek) or, the Olam (in the Hebrew). This period of time also known as the kingdom of God is called the Eon because it will be a time when God will flow through the ones who will possess eonian life. Often a period of time is called by its predominant aspect which characterizes it. This flow is so amazing that this period of time is called by its chief characterization, the flowing. I know it’s hard to understand, but even Shakespeare might possibly have appreciated this description. His home was Stratford on Avon. Avon is an old English word for river and was derived from eon, primarily because a rivers flows. The Danube River’s name is derived from Dan, which means a river, a flowing river.

The kingdom of God is going to be a training school, a period of preparation for those who will matriculate into the next phase of the divine timetable, the graduate school called the Parousia of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when He will be personally present upon this earth for one thousand years. The final exam will be a time of (the) great tribulation (there is no definite article in the original manuscripts). One can’t progress to the Parousia without having successfully graduated from the kingdom of God. There will be pressure and constriction, as the way becomes narrow. But, again the only promise ever held out to mankind by God: to be allowed to live in His kingdom when He establishes it upon this earth.

If one is not alive during the kingdom of God, one will not be alive in the Parousia. That will be a terrible loss because these will be two of the most amazing times - ever. God wants to train and prepare a people who will not need to be governed any longer, a people who will go onward and upward with Him to the new heaven and new earth.

But, what if a person who is eligible for entrance into the kingdom is dead when it begins? Well, that’s what resurrection is for. If people were alive and happy with God in heaven, what need would there be for resurrection? It would be an awful let down, wouldn’t it? So, if a person is dead when God’s kingdom comes, that person will need to be resurrected by the one who is the resurrection and the life, Jesus Christ. He will speak a person’s name and that person will come forth just like Lazarus did. Resurrection is the antidote for death; it is the only escape hatch from Sheol, which is the Hebrew word for the state of death. In Greek mythology Hades is a place, but in Holy Scripture Hades also means the state of death. Through the principle of divine interchange, the Holy Spirit saw fit to select the exact Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol, and it is Hades. Sheol and Hades are interchangeable – they mean the exact same thing, the state of death.

The order or time of a person’s resurrection will be in three companies, starting with the first fruits company. The resurrections will be orderly according to plan, in various orders, starting with the key people first, for there will be organizational structure in the kingdom. An analogy would be the calling up of an army unit: first the officers would be called and put in place, so that when the others showed up there would be leadership and direction for them. Wouldn’t that make more sense than resurrecting everyone all at once?

Some people will not be resurrected at the beginning of, nor during the kingdom of God. They will not be resurrected until the end of the Parousia. Some will be resurrected at Christ’s second coming; these are the martyrs who give their lives during the rebellion against the kingdom. As mentioned, not experiencing the wonders and the glory of these two periods will be a terrible loss. So, what determines if and when a person will be resurrected? God certainly has some criteria for determining if a person should be resurrected at the beginning of the kingdom, or during the kingdom, or not until after the Parousia. This order will be based upon the service that person will render. I guess the main thing is to be resurrected at some point in time to live once more; but, again the loss of not experiencing the kingdom and the Parousia would be very sad indeed.

If a person is alive at the beginning of the kingdom, that person will need to be changed, in the twinkling of an eye, in order to be able to continue living in it. There are many wonderful changes that will distinguish and characterize life in the kingdom of God. The most significant characteristic will be “life,” so much so that this time will be called “the life.” The present time in which we are living is characterized by death. From the moment someone is born, death begins to work in that person until it achieves its ultimate victory. Sickness and disease are part of the death process.

How many people today think about the kingdom of God? How many people know anything about it? How many people even care? Isn’t that amazing? Here we have a most curious development: people giving no consideration or regard to what should be the most important thing in their lives – the kingdom of God. What’s up with that? When the eight people emerged from the ark, God let man walk after his own ways in order to demonstrate what would happen if left alone. Today we see the results. We see a world filled with people who choose to walk without God and who strive to eliminate God from every aspect of their lives.

At various times along the way God exercised judgment when He chose to do so; and, He acted in grace at other times when He chose to do so. However, since Acts 28:28 God has been acting only in grace, both active and passive grace. This was a great “secret” that God kept hidden from the foundation of the world. The Greek word “musterion” doesn’t mean “mystery,” it means “secret.” He is presently writing into the record His countless and tremendous acts of Grace which He displays to the undeserving. He has long been showing this unmerited favor to the undeserving instead of judgment. God has not been acting in judgment, because grace and judgment are mutually exclusive concepts. In situations where God cannot exercise grace, he doesn’t act at all. This is a time of God’s administration of grace toward mankind. God’s coming kingdom will be a time of government, a time of judgment. No grace – only judgment. This doesn’t preclude mercy, just no amazing grace.

I do not believe in soul sleep. Only a living person can be asleep. The dead are dead, and the only way out is resurrection. Likewise, I do not believe that the wicked have spirits. Therefore, I agree that I have no warrant for saying that the spirits of the wicked will cease to exist. I said no such thing. There are three classifications of created beings: angels, spirits and man. At death, man does not become an angel, nor does man become a spirit. These are distinct classes of beings. So, to say that the spirits of the wicked will cease to exist makes no sense to me. Punishment is one thing - torment is another. The Greek word translated as torment is "basanidzo" and means to examine closely, to scrutinize carefully. Alchemists used a "touchstone" to determine if a metal were gold or not. They would rub it against the "basanos," the stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the mark left on the stone. It subsequently came to mean "to torture." The basinestes came to mean an examiner, and basanisterion came to mean "the question chamber." The word translated as torment occurrs many times: Mat 4:24, 8:6, 8:29, 14:24, 19:34; Mark 5:7, 6:48; Luke 8:28, 16:23&28; 2Peter 2:8; Rev 9:5, 11:10, 12:2 and 14:10-11. This action of torments in Rev. takes place in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. I cannot accept the concept as described in the KJV and the viewpoint held by you. Since there are two meanings for the word translated as "torment," I will choose the meaning that best suits the context here and say this word in Rev 14:10 indicates a most rigorous and stringent examination that will bring out all the facts as to why these "beast worshippers" became involved in this great sin. Rev. chapters 6-14 are related to matters that immediately precede the actual second coming of Jesus Christ. However, before the Lord Jesus returns to be personally present for a thousand years (The Parousia), there must be a long period of divine government, followed by a revolt against this government. It is during this revolt that we have the appearance of the arch-deceiver, the personal antichrist. Those spoken of in Rev. 14:10 who are involved in this revolt are individuals who have lived under God's government, have seen its wonders, enjoyed its blessings, and partaken of the glorious OUTFLOWINGS of God which characterize that eon (the kingdom of God). Why would anyone revolt against God and His kingdom? How could anyone be so deceived? Jesus Christ will provide the answer when He makes a most rigorous examination of all who were involved in this great sin. Fully considered must be the ability of Satan to deceive; also, the fact that he gives his deceptive powers to the beast, who in turn deceives them. The light that comes out of this examination will become a part of the established truths of God. Since all judgment has been reserved to the Son, this rigorous examination will be done in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ. The words "in fire and brimstone: are metaphorical terms used to set forth the full, exacting nature of this test, even as we speak of "the acid test" when no actual acid is involved. The words "the smoke of their torments" are figurative for "the results of their trials" and those findings will "ascent in respect to the eon of the eons," that is, become a part of the fixed truths of God.

What is man that Thou art mindful of him?

... and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Many people, including you, hurriedly point to 1Thes 5:23 and say that man is a tripartite being composed of a body, a soul and a spirit - taking as your authority the closing benediction of an epistle. Why do you pass so quickly over Luke 10:27 where you could see how simple it would be to prove from one isolated text that man is a quadripartite being composed of heart, soul, strength and mind? Why the 833rd reference to the soul?

I'm not in that much of a hurry. I wasn't proving man's tripartite nature, I merely quoted three Scriptures to establish that man has a spirit, and that the word, "spirit" as used in these verses (regardless of how it is used in other senses elsewhere) refers to the moral or rational nature of man.

...For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him?

In that passage the spirit of man and the spirit of God are portrayed as intelligent spirits, each knowing, and alone knowing, the things of the person to whom he belongs. This is the reason I said earlier that mortality, or death is never once predicated of a spirit - any spirit, good or bad.

You did not address the fact of this use of the word "spirit" as referring to the moral or rational nature of man directly; you tried to answer it indirectly by referring to Genesis 2:7:

God, the creator of man and the one who should know what exactly He created, said that He formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul. When a man dies, the process is simply reversed: man returns to the dust of the ground and the breath of life returns to God who gave it. Could this breath of life be what Stephen was talking about when he was about to die? Again, man is not a spirit. Yes, God is spirit, but man is not.

There are at least two glaring, but unstated assumptions in your hermeneutic of Genesis 2:7.
1. You presume to treat it as if it were 1) a technical definition, of the same kind of precision as a mathematical or scientific term 2) of the whole constitution of man. In fact, Genesis 2:7 is not a definition at all. It does not presume to define "soul", "spirit" or "man". It is simply a statement of the singular manner of man's creation as different from all God's other works:

"...man became a living soul."

It does not say, "the living soul is man", which is really what your unstated premise is, as if the terms soul and man were entirely convertible, or that one were the meaning of the other. You select one meaning of "soul" in conjunction with the breath of life as its universal and immutable meaning; and, because in certain passages it does denote 'animal' life, (human or animal) which is mortal, you then make the logical leap that man in his entire constitution is mortal.

The illogic of assuming that the terms "soul" and "man" are convertible terms is evident. If instead of, "man became a living soul", I say, "Joe became an engineer," does that not mean that Joe existed before he became an engineer? Now, if Joe and engineer are not convertible terms why should anyone conclude that man and living soul are convertible terms, or that the one is the meaning of the other? If you really want the entire constitution of man to be inferred from the Genesis 2:7, then, according to every law of interpretation, and for you to be consistent, you ought to insist that man existed before he was possessed of a living soul, or before God breathed into his nostrils the breath of lives.

So, you still have not really answered my objection that not only is man a living soul, but man has a spirit, the nature of which is moral and rational.

I was probably trying to assume that you were thinking of torment as eternal conscious torment, so I launched into my basanidzo explanation.

Well, your basanidzo explanation is interesting, but you did not respond to anything at all about in Matthew 25:
kolasiV
kolasis
kol'-as-is
from kolazw - kolazo 2849; penal infliction:--punishment, torment. .

Perhaps you can explain how unconscious, nonexistence can constitute punishment.

About basanidzo,

AV - torment 8, pain 1, toss 1, vex 1, toil 1; 12
1) to test (metals) by the touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal
2) to question by applying torture
3) to torture
4) to vex with grievous pains (of body or mind), to torment
5) to be harassed, distressed
5a) of those who at sea are struggling with a head wind

It sounds worse than water boarding at Guantanamo, to me at least. But, what is the duration of this "interrogation", as your preferred interpretation would have it? How long is it said that the water boarding, so to speak, goes on?

Please do not use the story (it is definitely not a parable - it fits none of the requirements to be a parable) of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16) as a pillar to support your belief. This story is a satire and was not intended by Jesus to “part the veil” to give us a glimpse of the afterlife.

My apologies for using the word, "parable" in connection with the "account" or the "story" or whatever, of the rich man and Lazarus. Ok, it's a satire. Well that's certainly a creative take on it, I'll give you that. Just out of curiosity, has anybody in the history of the Church ever taken the position that it is a satire? And second, not to recite your whole literary output on the subject, but exactly what does it satirize?

Third, even granting for the sake of argument that it is a satire, it still has to be based at root on facts, like every other thing Jesus said, parable or not, otherwise it would make no sense at all; like Jesus saying that the Kingdom of Heaven is like a brick that a man planted in the ground and it grew up into the greatest of herbs.

Have you seen those cartoons of Obamessiah walking on water and healing the sick? They are satirizing and parodying the hysterical, cult worship of his followers, but the only reason we understand the cartoons and think they're funny is that there was a real Messiah who walked on water, that gives us a real frame of reference with which to compare the nutcase Marxist "savior". You need to explain how Jesus in that account or story or whatever you want to call of the rich man and Lazarus could use completely false, misleading and utterly irrational imagery to convey some message, and still expect his hearers or anybody else to understand it and think it was funny.

Cordially,

The breath of life (neshamah chayim) in Genesis 2:7 was breathed directly into the nostrils of the man whom God had created, and this resulted in man’s becoming a living soul (chaiyah nephesh). The breath of life is a direct emanation from God, and is important because it is this breath of life that gives life to everyone of us and makes us living souls.

To build upon your engineer analogy, I am a man. I became a husband when I married my wonderful bride 39 years ago. I became a father when our daughter was born and a grandfather when her son was born. When I die the husband, father and grandfather will die also. They don’t live on, do they? (Well, hopefully they do in the memories of our loved ones).

As I have mentioned, there are two aspects of a living man that constitute him a living soul: a body and the breath of life, which is spoken of in Scripture as God’s gift to man. Man is not this breath; it is God’s gift to him. When we read in Scripture of the breath of the LORD, we are reading of the same breath that made man a living soul. Man was once without it, yet, he was a man. And before it was given to him, it was residing in the fullness of the Deity Himself. After it entered into man and became a part of him, it still belonged to the LORD, and is regarded by God as being His own breath.

In the phrase, the breath of life, the word “of” is the sign of the genitive; and here it is the genitive of apposition, a figure of speech in which the second noun defines the first. Therefore, this is telling us that God breathed into man’s nostrils the breath, that is to say, life. Thus, it was actually life that God breathed into man, and this constitutes him a living soul. As you correctly point out, animals are souls too.

In studying the Hebrew word to try and discover the nature of man, there are three words that appear again and again. Neshamah (breath), chaiyim (life) and ruach (spirit). These three words are all used of the same thing. They are not used of three different things, but set forth the same thing by using three terms. The breath that God breathed into man is his life, and this life is man’s spirit.

Compare Genesis 2:1 and Ecclesiastes 12:1. The breath of life which God gave to man is one and the same with man’s spirit, which, when a man dies, must return to God Who gave it. While this spirit is sometimes spoken of as belonging to a man, it remains always God’s spirit and must return to Him.

The most positive help in identifying the breath of life (neshamah chaiyam) with man’s spirit (ruach) is found in the book of Job. This book of Job, as you probably know, is Hebrew poetry, and in Hebrew poetry the rhythm is not achieved by a repetition of sounds, but by a repetition of sentiments and ideas. This is called parallelism: passages of two clauses in which the second clause is identical with the first, but expressed in different words. Consider:

All the while my breath (neshamah) is in me, and the spirit (ruach) of God is in my nostrils. Job 27:3

The spirit (ruach) of God hath made me, and the breath (neshamah) of the Almighty hath given me life. Job 33:4

But there is a spirit (ruach) in man: and the inspiration (neshamah) of the Almighty giveth him understanding. Job 32:8

If He set His heart upon man, if He gather unto Himself His spirit (ruach), and (even) His breath (neshamah); all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. Job 34:14-15

Thus saith the LORD … He that giveth breath (neshamah) to the people upon it, and spirit (ruach) to them that walk therein. Isaiah 42:5.

Breath (neshamah), life (chaiyim) and spirit (ruach) are different designations of the same principle; and they are not names of three different things.

Why is spirit called breath? In the word of God there are certain things that we could never understand if God had not made them plain by the use of figures. These figures become illustrations of things that are imperceptible to the senses; therefore, man lacks the facilities for grasping them.

Take death for example. The divine figure or illustration of death is sleep. Man can know nothing of death since he has never experienced it; but, he does know a lot about sleep, which he has experienced many times. God has chosen the figure of sleep to picture death to us. Death is not sleep, no more than sleep is death. But, sleep is the name given to and is the figure of death, and the reality is often called by the name of the figure.

This is also true of the soul. The divine figure and illustration of the soul is the blood. It is not that the soul is the blood, but that blood is the divinely chosen figure to make the soul comprehensible to us.

Then there is the breath of life or spirit of man. This is beyond the comprehension of any of our senses, so God has seen fit to use the breath as a divine figure or illustration. And if we wonder why the breath should be chosen as a figure, we need to begin with the familiar, man’s breath, and work to the unfamiliar, man’s spirit. Thus, we begin with the figure and work up to the fact.

The breath is God’s figure or illustration of the life or the spirit of man. The source of every man’s spirit or life is God, just as the source of every creature’s breath is the atmosphere. Man’s spirit or life is a direct emanation from God Himself, and it flows from God to every living soul. Each one has that portion of life or spirit from God which he needs for his purposes. All things that live, live only in and by His life. Life has no other source but God. He originates and sustains life in all by giving it out of Himself. This was the explicit testimony of Paul to the men of Athens in Acts 17:28. “For in Him we live, and move, and have our being (our existence).”

During the few brief moments that man’s breath is in his body, he has every right to call it “his breath,” even though it remains a part of and is never severed from the air as a whole. Likewise, during the days or years that the spirit or life from God may be in man, he has every right to call it “his spirit” or “his life,” even though it is never severed from and remains a part of the life of God. But when man’s breath leaves his lungs, it must return to the air from which it came; even so, when man’s spirit or life leaves the man, it must return to God Who gave it.

In the study of man’s spirit we must guard against two errors. That spirit which God loans to man for a time is not the Holy Spirit, Also we must never forget that man’s spirit is NOT a spirit being (as you seem to think). Before man came into possession of the breath of life which is fully identified in Scripture as being “man’s spirit,” it was a part of the divine nature, residing in God’s fullness. When it returns to Him, it will again be a part of His nature and will find its place in His fullness.

Man’s spirit has no personality, no individuality, and no separate existence. All these are attributes of the man, and they are the result of life or spirit entering into him and making him a living soul. Many people think that at death man becomes a “disembodied spirit;” but this is an idea that has no basis in the word of God.

Later on tonight, I will give you a brief explanation of why I believe the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus is a satire. By the way, satire does not have to be funny. Satire is holding up a doctrine or teaching to ridicule, which is precisely what our Lord was doing to the Pharissees.

Ciao for now.

As promised here are my thoughts on the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus. This story is used time and time again to prove that the dead are not really dead, but alive in some other place. I submit there is another way of looking at this portion of Scripture. After reading, perhaps one might re-think using this to describe conditions in the “afterlife.”

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS

Most of Orthodox Christianity looks upon this portion of Scripture as historical narrative. Some regard this as a parable attempting to teach us about death and the afterlife. Both schools of thought believe Jesus is giving us a rare behind the scenes glimpse of what people should have expected about the afterlife before His resurrection from among the dead. It’s difficult to believe our Lord had such a purpose in mind when He was addressing His most hated enemies, the “rulers of the Jews,” the Pharisees. They clearly hated Him and continuously plotted how they might do away with Him, because He was, they felt, turning the whole world upside down, upsetting the status quo, at least from their perspective.

Since this part of Luke’s Gospel does not fit the criteria for being a parable, in that it creates more problems than it solves by interpreting it as one, perhaps our Lord was using another literary device, oh say, satire maybe? If “mainstreamers” were to re-read this story wearing a different set of glasses, maybe they would see a surprise or two. Let’s taka a look, but remember, ask yourself afterwards if this is a suitable pillar upon which to base your beliefs about death and the afterlife.

KJV Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The subtitle I want to add is:

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS, THE VICTICRAT

[A victicrat is someone with a victim’s mentality, always seeking to place the blame for his misfortune on others, and not looking within himself nor to God for the answers to his predicament].

There was a certain rich man (must have been a Republican) ...

Where, oh where does it say the Rich Man was an evil, vile, disgusting POS? Yet, this is how he has been portrayed down through the centuries. What charge or charges did Jesus lay against this man? Look again and see what it says.

And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus ...

Where, oh where does it say Lazarus was a good and wonderful person? But, over the years he has been depicted as a model of holiness and righteousness. However, King David wouldn’t agree:

KJV Psalm 37:25 I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread.

[Let’s watch as a traveler stops to ask some questions].

Traveler: “Every day I ride by here about the same time, and I see some people lay a disabled guy at this rich man’s gate. I just have to ask what’s up with that.
Yo’ Dude, why are you just lying there?”

Lazarus: “Because the rich ‘man’ is keeping me down.”

Traveler: “Is that why you are covered with sores? Is that why you are content with crumbs?”

Lazarus: “No one else will give me such good crumbs. And the dogs lick my sores.”

Traveler: “Dude, do you know there are no public welfare programs yet? This isn’t California, you know.”

Lazarus: (Mumbling to himself something about it takes a village).

[The scene ends with the angels coming and carrying Lazarus to Abraham’s Bosom].

[The next scene opens in a place having two compartments separated by a huge gulf. Abraham is there with Lazarus, and the Rich Man is present on the opposite side of the chasm. Abraham and Lazarus seem to be having quite a good time. The Rich Man, however, is engulfed in flames and definitely not having the time of his life. The Traveler, having gone back to the future, is present as well].

Traveler: “Excuse me, Mr. Abraham.”

Abraham: “Yes, my son?”

Traveler: “You seem to be in charge here, so what’s going on?”

Abraham: “Well, you see there are two compartments in this place and since Lazarus received evil things and poverty in his lifetime, he is here with me on the good side enjoying bliss. The Rich Man had riches and the good things in his lifetime, so now he is on the bad side, being in torments. In other words, conditions are reversed here in the afterlife.”

Tarveler: “Conditions are reversed in the afterlife?”

Abraham: “Correct.”

Traveler: “Please forgive me for asking, but why are you yourself on the good side? When you were alive, weren’t you one of the richest men on the planet? Didn’t you enjoy the good life?”

Abraham: “Why, er, uhh, well, er, yes, I was very rich and enjoyed the best of everything.”

Traveler: “So, what the hell are you doing on the good side? If conditions are reversed in the afterlife, shouldn’t you be over there across the great gulf in torments? What? Is the name of this place, ‘Hypocriteville, or something?”

Abraham: “Now see here, young man.”

Traveler: “No, you see here! Are we on Candid Camera? This is the biggest hypocritical farce I have ever seen. Mr. Abraham, I have another question.”

Abraham: “Oy, vey!”

Traveler: “Mr. Abraham, are you a sadist?”

Abraham: “Of course not!”

Traveler: “Well, excuuuuuuuse me, but isn’t sadism a mental illness, and isn’t a sadist someone who delights in witnessing the agony of others? Hmmm?”

Abraham: “Um, yes.”

Traveler: “So, aren’t you watching and listening to the agony of the Rich Man in torments?”

Abraham: “Yes.”

Traveler: “Are you doing anything about it?”

Abraham: “No. But I can’t anyway. You see this big gulf, don’t you? No one can cross over in either direction.”

Traveler: “Do you mean sort of like the great gulf that existed in Palestine when the Pharisees made sure the rich and powerful remained so, and the poor stayed poor? The poor were never permitted to cross over that chasm, and of course no one would want to cross over from the rich side. Is that the great gulf you are talking about?”

Abraham: “Uh, yes.”

Traveler: “Didn’t the Pharisees teach that the poor were in God’s disfavor and the rich were favored of God? To help the poor by feeding them and helping to meet their needs would have been going against the will of God, according to their doctrines.”

Abraham: “Er, ahh.”

Traveler: “So, you see, I don’t think you really are Abraham. I think you are a figment of some Pharisee’s imagination. The real Abraham whose faith pleased God, probably would have done much to alleviate the sufferings of the common Jewish people. The real Abraham would not say, ‘There, there, be ye warmed and be ye filled,’ and not do something to help.”

Abraham: “Blast it! How did you figure it out?”

Traveler: “It wasn’t too difficult because this whole scene is a charade. You are smack dab in the middle of one of the most exquisite satires ever devised.”

Abraham: “Whatchoutalkinbout?”

[Careful consideration of this whole set of circumstances surrounding this incident should indicate to the most casual observer that our Lord Jesus Christ is here mocking His most hated enemies and their teachings].

Traveler: “Mr. Abraham, do you know what satire is?”

Abraham: “Yes, I do, Mr. Smarty Pants. It’s holding up something to ridicule, making fun of a doctrine or a teaching, thereby pointing out its absurdity.”

Traveler: “Bingo! You nailed it!” First of all, let’s take a look around. You’re dead, aren’t you?”

Abraham: “Yes, I am.”

Traveler: “And Lazarus and the Rich Man are too, right?”

Abraham: “Right.”

Traveler: “Well, where are your bodies - buried, right?”

Abraham: “Right.”

Traveler: “As a matter of fact, you yourself are way beyond toast aren’t you, since you’ve been dead for so long?”

Abraham: “Yes, it has been a long, long time.”

Traveler: “So, how come you have a bosom? How come Lazarus has a finger to dip in cool water? How come the Rich Man has a tongue that needs a drop of water to cool it? Aren’t you guys disembodied souls?”

Abraham: “Of course we are.”

Traveler: “Does a soul have a tongue, or a finger, or a bosom?”

Abraham: “Umm. Uhh.”

Traveler: “What’s the matter? Cat got your tongue? Oh, that’s right, you really don’t have a tongue any longer, do you?

“You see, you’re caught up in a Platonic fairyland, just like most of Orthodox Christianity today. The Pharisees were great at making up all kinds of stories and rules and burdens for the people to bear in order to keep them in line, so they wouldn’t make waves and upset the status quo. The doctrine was established about the tables being reversed in the afterlife. If the poor would only be content with their lot and endure their sufferings while alive, they would enjoy riches and bliss ‘in the great by and by.’ It wouldn’t be good for the poor to bother the rich about their impoverished conditions in the land of Palestine under the Roman occupation. If the rich were to help the poor, it would be going against God.

“However, the Pharisees didn’t bother to carry such absurd teachings out to all their logical conclusions, i.e., they then would go from good to bad. Did they really think no one would notice their rank hypocrisy? Well, there is one who did notice – our Lord Jesus Christ. In the hearing of the disciples and the common people, He really unloaded on the Pharisees by putting it all into words, with which He then lashed them, as if with whips of scorpion’s tails.

Furthermore, since the real Abraham is in sheol, i.e., the state of death, I accuse you of being a phoney.”

This story is used to prove that life continues on after death. In other words, again the lie is repeated, “dying you shall not surely die.” I am somewhat surprised at the emphatic insistence by so many pastors and teachers that this is indeed a historical narrative, not to be disputed because it comes to us straight from the lips of our Savior, Jesus Christ. Since this passage of Scripture is used as the basis for much doctrine, it should be understood in light of the setting, the context, the speaker and the intended audience. Otherwise, if not understood properly, numerous difficulties are created which must be subsequently addressed, thereby causing additional difficulties.

This passage requires more study than most because it is a high literary style being employed by Jesus, and many people do not realize that our Lord would be dealing out such harsh ridicule of the absurd teachings of the ruling class in Israel. This is not a parable, fable or any such style. It is pure satire, exquisitely holding up for ridicule the preposterous doctrines of the rulers of the Jews. Sometimes when you carry an idea out to all its logical conclusions and put it into words, the folly of it becomes intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. It seems the Scribes and the Pharisees understood what Jeus was saying, because their anger boiled and raged against the one who lashed them with their own words.

But, once again you are being asked to judge this study on its individual merits. The question remains: Is this a suitable foundation upon which to build your belief regarding what happens at death? Remember, the question does not concern what you believe about death; rather, is this story really “parting the veil” for us in order to see what the “afterlife” is like?

For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So too, no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God?
1 Corinthians 2:11

Thank you for taking the time to write responses at length. There are still some issues, however, that you have not addressed.

Your second response to the fact that the word, "spirit" as depicted in I Corinthians 2:11, Romans 8:16 and 1 Thessalonians 5:23 (regardless of how it is used in other senses elsewhere, which I freely grant you) refers to the moral or rational nature of man, consists of a flat denial with zero scripture references given to support the denial:

Other unanswered issues that I have raised that are still on the table include:
2. Your interpretation of 'punishment' in Matthew 25:
kolasiV
kolasis
kol'-as-is
from kolazw - kolazo 2849; penal infliction:--punishment, torment.
with an explanation of how unconscious, nonexistence can constitute punishment.
3. The duration of basanidzo

Now, I want to reply to the following:

In studying the Hebrew word to try and discover the nature of man, there are three words that appear again and again. Neshamah (breath), chaiyim (life) and ruach (spirit). These three words are all used of the same thing. They are not used of three different things, but set forth the same thing by using three terms. The breath that God breathed into man is his life, and this life is man’s spirit.

The bolded part is simply wrong, because it conflates "soul" and "spirit". FIrst, the Word of God separates the two:

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

Second, the two words, soul and spirit, in the originals are NEVER interchanged or substituted for each other. In the New Testament PNEUMA is NEVER translated "soul", and PSUCHEE is NEVER translated spirit, simply because they do not refer to the same thing as you allege. The difference between them is great enough to preclude their substitution for one another in the original language. The rational and moral something called "spirit," is not that animal something called "soul" or "animal life".

To your denial that a “disembodied spirit;” is an idea that has no basis in the word of God, I offer a few more rebuttals: First, incontrovertible evidence of separate and intermediate conscious existence of human spirits consists in the fact that Moses appeared on earth on Mount Tabor about 1500 years after his death, while what is left of his body remains to this day where his body was buried. He appeared with Elijah who had died about 900 years earlier.

Second,

2 Corinthians 12:2
I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.

If it were actually impossible for a man to live out the body, or for man's spirit to live in a separate state, as you allege, how could Paul, as a man of truth and an Apostle of Jesus Christ, say with a straight face that he could not tell whether he "was in the body or out of the body."?

John 11
23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again."
24 Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; 26and whoever lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

He that believes in Christ will never die. Since you are apparently well versed in Greek you should understand the tense of that statement. Therefore, because the believers who heard that statement are long dead as far as their bodies are concerned, their spirits must certainly survive their bodies, or else Jesus deceived them and us by saying that they would never die. My credulity does not extend that far so as to believe such a thing.

Cordially,

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.