The nature and destiny of man

[Truth Defender]

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).

[Diamond]

I realize you are short of time but I must respond to this:

After Moses and Elijah appeared to them on the mount, as they were heading back down, Jesus told them to tell the VISION to no man. It was a vision.

A distinction without a difference. It doesn't change a whit what they had seen; namely, Moses and Elijah, talking with Him.

3 And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.
4 Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, (C)I will make three tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, (D)a voice out of the cloud said, "(E)This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"
6 When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground and were terrified.
7 And Jesus came to them and touched them and said, "Get up, and (F)do not be afraid."
8 And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.

Strong's Number:  3705

o¸rama

Original Word		Word Origin
	o¸rama		from (3708)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Horama		hor'-am-ah
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Noun Neuter		5:371,706
Definition
	that which is seen, spectacle a sight divinely granted in an ecstasy or in a sleep, a vision
Translated Words
	KJV (12) - sight, 1; vision, 11; NAS (12) - sight, 1; vision, 11;

Is this account of dead men talking another divinely inspired deception where they really didn't see what they saw and the 'real' meaning is the exact opposite of its appearance? God forbid. When you do get an opportunity, can you please explain to me why God would cause his disciples to see things that are false and misleading such as the spirits of the departed men, Moses and Elijah talking and carrying on a conversation with Jesus in the presence of the disciples? That would sure seem to me to be a very strange way of teaching that bodily death means unconscious nonexistence, to say the least.

Cordially,

[Overwatcher]

Chapter 17
1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Dead men talking – is that the point of this passage? And when they had lifted up their eyes, where were Moses and Elias? Did they go “poof?”

Place your focus where you will (apparently your emphasis is to prove that the dead are not really dead, but truly alive), but my take on this learning experience is that Jesus gave them a revelation concerning His glory and the esteem in which He is held by God. They had apparently been distracted by the “presence” of two men whom they deeply revered. However, things got straightened out when Moses and Elias disappeared and they saw Jesus only.

When they were heading back down from the mountain and Jesus told them to tell the vision to no one, do you think he was emphasizing the part about Moses and Elias talking, or about what they had seen concerning His glory?

Jesus is all we need. We don’t need Moses, Elias, etc., we need Jesus. Our focus should be on Him. He is the resurrection and the life. Like Peter and the others, we also should see Jesus only. That’s my take.

BTW, why don’t you bring up the Endor incident too? You are attempting to dig up every passage of Scripture that shows dead men talking. But, before going too much further, I would like to hear your take on my take on dead men talking in the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus.

[Diamond]

Place your focus where you will (apparently your emphasis is to prove that the dead are not really dead, but truly alive), but my take on this learning experience is that Jesus gave them a revelation concerning His glory and the esteem in which He is held by God. They had apparently been distracted by the “presence” of two men whom they deeply revered. However, things got straightened out when Moses and Elias disappeared and they saw Jesus only.

I actually agree with you that the emphasis of the passage as a whole is the Glory of God and the esteem in which Jesus Christ is held by the Father. That theme however, does not obviate the details concerning the long dead men Moses and Elijah conscious and talking, which contradict your view of the hereafter. Since those details contradict your view of the afterlife, your gloss is that it must have been some sort of divine hallucination (that goes against everything the Bible purportedly teaches on the subject) to teach those idiot disciples a lesson.

My point is that either way you want to look at it, "vision" or real presence, your insistence on the unconscious, nonexistence of the dead is rebutted by the "incidental" details of yet another New Testament passage.

To prove that the dead are not really dead with respect to their spirits, but truly alive I only need to quote the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, in a dispute he had with the Sadducees on the subject:

Luke 20
37But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'^[c] 38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive."

I will use that passage in conjuction with your interpretation of the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus.

While it may be theoretically possible that you are the first person in 2,000 years to have the right prescription on your glasses to correctly interpret Luke 16 as a satire, the purpose of which was Jesus' ridicule of the Pharisees' purportedly false doctrine of the hereafter, I doubt it for a number of reasons.

First, because Jesus told the Sadducees they were mistaken about their view of spirits and the resurrection, and second, because Paul also sided with the Pharisees (on this point at least), as opposed to the Sadducees. On trial for his life:

Acts 23
6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. 7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. 8 For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.

Note, "The Pharisees acknowledge BOTH" - two tenets, not one. Angels and spirits are the one tenet - the resurrection of the body, the other. The Sadducees deny spirits and a future state. They also denied the resurrection of the body.

Paul said I am [not, "I was"] a Pharisee, in an assembly of Pharisees and Sadducees. He intended to save his life by it. Did he lie, just to get out of a jam? The resurrection of the dead, the existence of angels and spirits, and the everlasting existence of man, either in happiness or misery, were believed by the Pharisee, a fact that you yourself admit by your characterization of the story of the rich man and Lazarus as satire. Yet Paul affirmed these doctrines to be true when he solemnly declared that he was, in opposition to the skepticism of the Sadducees, a Pharisee in faith, and by descent not just the son of a Pharisee, but a Pharisee himself.

Moreover, Jesus, in the passage from Luke 20 says that spirits are; that the spirits of the dead ARE. The Sadducees say they are NOT. Jesus affirms not that they were, but that they ARE. The Sadducess say what you say with respect to spirits; Abraham is dead, Isaac is dead, and Jacob is dead, said, entirely and wholly dead. If I didn't know better I would think you were quoting them: "Man’s spirit has no personality, no individuality, and no separate existence." But Jesus affirmed that spirits are; and his proof was that God is the God of Abraham, of some existing person, not the God of what was, but the God of what is. Therefore, as he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob now live, always live. For, "All live to God." He said this after these men had died.

For all the foregoing reasons I do not accept your interpretation of the story of the rich man and Lazarus that Jesus intended by satire to ridicule the Pharisees doctrine of the afterlife, or that the Transfiguration was a divinely inspired hallucination imbedded with intrincally false and misleading details. I prefer to go with Jesus, Luke, and Paul on these accounts.

Cordially,

[Overwatcher]

You and I are having, and have been having, a major “disconnect.” I have clarified my beliefs several times, and you continue to totally ignore my clarifications.

A vision is not a hallucination, nor were those disciples “idiots.”

I have told you that I do NOT believe the dead are unconscious. The term unconscious can only be applied to the living. A living person can be conscious or unconscious, but a dead person can only be a dead person. Nor do I believe the dead are non-existent. They have existed and they will exist again when they are resurrected.

I believe in the existence of angels whole-heartedly. I have also told you that I believe in the existence of spirits, i.e., spirit beings. God is not a spirit being. Otherwise, He would not be God.

Luke 24:39. “Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

By these words our Lord denied that He was a spirit being. However, God is spirit; that is one of His aspects. Man is not a spirit, and he never becomes one. Yes, a spirit can live without a body. As mentioned, if it had a body, it would not be a spirit.

I gave you a detailed explanation about what I believe concerning “breath,” “life” and “spirit.” What did you do? You came back at me claiming that I equated soul with spirit. I replied that I said no such thing. No comment from you about being wrong about what I said.

1Cor.15:12. “If there is no resurrection of the dead, then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.”

Notice Paul said “resurrection of the dead.” You use the term “resurrection of the body.” I agree with Paul, not you. The Bible does not recognize the term you use; it recognizes the term Paul used. There is no such thing as resurrection of the body. No such thing.

John 5:28. “Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.

Concerning Luke 20:37. Yes, the dead indeed do rise and God is the God of the living, not the God of the dead. And that is because Jesus rose from the dead. And because He did, we will also. If He had not risen from the dead, we will not, and God would be the God of the dead. Look, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive now, they will not need to be raised from the dead. The argument of our Lord demands that they be dead; therefore, resurrection is a necessity, or else God will be the God of the dead. Since He is not, resurrection is demanded.

Did you actually read my story about The Rich Man and Lazarus, or did you simply glance at it and dismiss it? I suspect the latter. There are so many points in my story that demand attention and consideration. If you had actually, seriously read it, you would be filled with questions and you would be greatly exercised to consider re-thinking certain of your viewpoints.

I also prefer to go with Jesus and Paul on these accounts. I say I am right, you say you are right. I say potato, you say potahto.

[Diamond]

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

I have clarified my beliefs several times, and you continue to totally ignore my clarifications.

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I do mean to ignore any of your points. I am simply trying to respond as fully as possible to what I see as the major points. I am sure you feel like you are trying doing the same thing, but on my end I am also tempted to believe that you are ignoring certain of my points. However, I realize that people are limited in the amount of time that they can devote to a discussion like this, so I let some of it go. One that I will not let go is the passage above. If we're keeping score, your only response (other than Gen 2:7, which I discussed in some detail) to the fact that the word, "spirit" as depicted in I Corinthians 2:11, etc (regardless of how it is used in other senses elsewhere) refers to the moral or rational nature of man, consists of a flat denial with zero scripture references given to support the denial.

A vision is not a hallucination, nor were those disciples “idiots.”

Ok, a little hyperbolic I admit. But as I said, it makes no difference to your case whether it was a vision, or a real presence of Moses and Elijah on the mountain. Either way you still have a major problem explaining why God would cause the disciples to see such a thing that purportedly contradicts everything Scripture teaches on the subject, if the dead are actually as dead as dogs, insensible, and with no separate existence apart from their bodies after death.

I have told you that I do NOT believe the dead are unconscious. The term unconscious can only be applied to the living. A living person can be conscious or unconscious, but a dead person can only be a dead person. Nor do I believe the dead are nonexistent. They have existed and they will exist again when they are resurrected.

This is a semantic quibble. You deny that man has conscious existence apart from the body after death. You said that "man’s spirit has no personality, no individuality, and no separate existence." (which of course I think is contradicted many times in Scripture). However, to say as you do here that a dead person can only be a dead person is tautologous. In the Scripture a man can be dead in one sense and alive in another, as for example in, "Let the dead bury their own dead, and follow me". How could a dead man bury a dead man, unless he can be alive in one sense while dead in another? John says, "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death." Here is a person living who has passed from spiritual death to spiritual life while possessing, before and since, human life. Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:6 , "But she who gives herself to wanton pleasure is dead even while she lives", and so on.

By these words our Lord denied that He was a spirit being. However, God is spirit; that is one of His aspects. Man is not a spirit, and he never becomes one. Yes, a spirit can live without a body. As mentioned, if it had a body, it would not be a spirit.

I agree with the first two sentences. However, the sentence in bold mischaracterizes what I have said. I do not say that man is a spirit, as if the terms man and spirit are convertible. Therefore to deny to he "becomes one" is nonsensical. It is a straw man. I have repeatedly stated that man has a spirit, which is in certain places in the Bible denoted as the rational, moral nature of man.

I gave you a detailed explanation about what I believe concerning “breath,” “life” and “spirit.” What did you do? You came back at me claiming that I equated soul with spirit. I replied that I said no such thing. No comment from you about being wrong about what I said.

This complaint is really astonishing to me. In one of your clarifications you said

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.

You said the three words refer TO THE SAME THING. NOT THREE DIFFERENT THINGS. THE SAME THING. How do you expect me not to suspect that you conflate them? They are not convertible terms, and they are not all used invariably in the same, immutable sense to refer to the same thing in every passage that they are used, as you seem to think. I could be wrong about what you think, but I can't tell. Your explanation is not clear.

Notice Paul said “resurrection of the dead.” You use the term “resurrection of the body.” I agree with Paul, not you. The Bible does not recognize the term you use; it recognizes the term Paul used. There is no such thing as resurrection of the body. No such thing.

Either phrase, "resurrection of the dead", or "resurrection of the body" is acceptable. You plainly deny the resurrection of the body, but Paul did not. Not only did he not deny it, he explicitly affirs it. He used BOTH expressions. He said,

I Corinthians 15
5 But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?"
36 How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
37 When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else.
38 But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
40 There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another.
41 The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Your assertion that there is no such thing as the resurrection of the body is directly, specifically and explicitly contradicted by Paul. I'm not the one who disagrees with Paul; you are.

Your denial is also explicitly contradicted by Jesus:

John 2
8 Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
20 The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.

Strong's Number:  4983

swÜma

Original Word		Word Origin
	swÜma		from (4982)
Transliterated Word		Phonetic Spelling
	Soma		so'-mah
Parts of Speech		TDNT
	Noun Neuter		7:1024,1140
Definition
	the body both of men or animals a dead body or corpse the living body of animals the bodies of planets and of stars (heavenly bodies) is used of a (large or small) number of men closely united into one society, or family as it were; a social, ethical, mystical body so in the NT of the church that which casts a shadow as distinguished from the shadow itself
Translated Words
	KJV (146) - bodily, 1; body, 144; slave, 1; NAS (142) - bodies, 11; body, 128; personal, 1; slaves, 1; substance, 1;

---

Powered by LightSpeed Technology
© 2001-2008, StudyLight.org
 

... Look, if Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are alive now, they will not need to be raised from the dead. The argument of our Lord demands that they be dead; therefore, resurrection is a necessity, or else God will be the God of the dead. Since He is not, resurrection is demanded.

The issue is not the necessity of the resurrection, it is the nature of that resurrection. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are dead as door nails with respect to their bodies, but alive to God with respect to their spirits. It is their bodies that will be raised. It is the body that is mortal, not the spirit.

Romans 8:
But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.
11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Your mistake, as I have pointed out to you, is the deficiency of your definition of man in his entirety as a living soul that is mortal.

If you actually read my story about The Rich Man and Lazarus, or did you simply glance at it and dismiss it? I suspect the latter. There are so many points in my story that demand attention and consideration. If you had actually, seriously read it, you would be filled with questions and you would be greatly exercised to consider re-thinking certain of your viewpoints.

Since you were thoughtful enough to post it I considered it my obligation to read every word of it, which I proceeded to do. I will be happy to discuss any particular portion of it that you wish. However, the bottom line seems to me to be that the doctrine that you characterize as satarized by Jesus is the very doctrine that was solemnly affirmed by Paul in his own defense before the Sadducees and the Pharisees. What you portray as satire, Paul affirms. If that is not enough to give you pause to think that your interpretation might not be correct, I don't know what is.

Cordially,

[Overwatcher]

I also sincerely thank you for your time in this discussion.

Before I respond again I would really like to understand a few things better about what you are saying.

Is man’s spirit which you describe as the moral or rational nature of man immortal?

In resurrection do you believe that we will have a spiritual body, or the same body we presently have? By spiritual body I mean a body produced directly by God with no natural intervening process.

Again, breath, life and spirit are interchangeable in my opinion. My “complaint” was that you said I equated these terms with the soul, which I did not.

Do you believe that the resurrection of the body is the same as the resurrection of the dead? They are the same thing? I think that’s what you are saying.

Paul was a Pharisee and believed in resurrection for sure. But, are you saying that all the teachings of the Pharisees were correct and righteous? Do you think Paul felt that way?

Finally, thanks for taking the time to read my story of The Rich Man and Lazarus. Then you do believe the story as told in Luke is historical narrative?

I just want to make sure my understanding of what you are saying is more perfect before responding. Thanks again.

[Diamond]

Whew! FR is back up. I was going through the torments of the damned there for a while. Well, not quite.

Is man’s spirit which you describe as the moral or rational nature of man immortal? I respectfully object to the form of the question, in that it is a category error to predicate either mortality or immortality to spirit. Mortality in the Bible is used of the soul, in the sense of animal life or a living creature, or of the body, but death or mortality is never once alleged of a spirit, human or otherwise. Jesus said that they cannot die.

With reference to man's spirit being described as the moral or rational nature of man, I say it is one of the senses in which the word spirit is used in the Bible. Other senses in which it is used include "animating force", "disposition", etc.

In resurrection do you believe that we will have a spiritual body, or the same body we presently have? By spiritual body I mean a body produced directly by God with no natural intervening process.

Paul anticipated this question in I Corinthians 15, which I quoted above. "But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" I believe it is the same body in the sense of identity, but changed in the sense of substance. The imagery is that of a seed that is planted. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It will be changed to be like his glorious body - Philippians 3:21. I'm not what you mean by a spiritual body being produced directly by God with no natural intervening process. I don't really have the slightest idea how God will accomplish it, or what the process is. I have confidence that One who can raise the dead will know how to handle it.

Again, breath, life and spirit are interchangeable in my opinion. My “complaint” was that you said I equated these terms with the soul, which I did not.

What is the single thing you say they refer to? I think they are not convertible terms, as any word study would show. They have different shades of meaning. For example, "spirit" does not always or invariably mean "life", even in the Hebrew.

Paul was a Pharisee and believed in resurrection for sure. But, are you saying that all the teachings of the Pharisees were correct and righteous? Do you think Paul felt that way?

One does not need to know everything that the Pharisees believed, much less accept any other of their beliefs as valid or righteous to prove that with respect to BOTH tenets: 1. spirits, angel or human, and 2. the resurrection, Paul claimed the same belief as the Pharisees, as opposed to the beliefs of the Sadducees, who denied both disembodied spirits and the resurrection. Again I say to you; this particular doctrine of the Pharisee that you ridicule, Paul solemnly affirmed.

Finally, thanks for taking the time to read my story of The Rich Man and Lazarus. Then you do believe the story as told in Luke is historical narrative?

I have never interpreted it as historical narrative any more than I do the stories of the Lost Coin, the Two Sons, or the Shrewd Manager that immediately precede it. Of whatever other import that was intended by it, I have always thought that the moral of the story was not that the rich man was suffering torment in Hades merely because he was rich, but because callous indifference to the suffering of others. As you alluded to in your dramatization, "There, there, be ye warmed and be ye filled,’ and not do something to help.” As Jesus excoriated the Pharisees one time:

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Cordially

[Diamond]

I messed up the formatting on that first question. It should look like this:

Is man’s spirit which you describe as the moral or rational nature of man immortal?

I respectfully object to the form of the question, in that it is a category error to predicate either mortality or immortality to spirit. Mortality in the Bible is used of the soul, in the sense of animal life or a living creature, or of the body, but death or mortality is never once alleged of a spirit, human or otherwise. Jesus said that they cannot die.

[Overwatcher]

Please forgive me for being rather dense, but I am sincerely trying to understand you and what you are saying.

You object to the form of the question in that it is a category error. Okay. But, you say death or mortality is never once alleged of a spirit - they cannot die. Isn’t that the same thing as being immortal? I’m just not following your reasoning.

You have your 1 Cor 2:11 which you will not let go, and I have my Gen 2:7 which I will not let go. When God created the man he took the soil and fashioned a body - but it had no life. God then breathed into that body’s nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living soul. I think you are saying (not sure) that the man has a spirit that is not the same thing as his soul. Is that correct? If that is correct, how did man’s spirit get created (I know, by God), but how did it get hooked up with the man’s body? And, if at death the body dies, but this spirit continues to live on, is that when it goes to heaven?

Please tell me what Paul meant when he said in 1 Cor 15:16-18: 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. 18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

I showed you in the book of Job where breath, life and spirit and positively used interchangeably by the Holy Spirit. I know you don’t accept that, so there’s nothing more I can say about it. Again, I do not equate these terms with the soul.

Also, I am having a difficult time following your reasoning concerning Paul the Pharisee and the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus. Paul believed in resurrection, but I find no indication he believed in disembodied spirits. As I have mentioned, a disembodied spirit is a contradiction in terms. If a spirit had a body, it wouldn’t be a spirit. Sorry for not following your reasoning. I just don’t get it. I don’t see why Paul would object to my version of the story, especially considering the context and the setting when and where Jesus was talking, and to whom.

Where does it indicate that Jesus was teaching anything at all about why the Rich Man was in torments? I don’t see any charge or charges brought against this man, except by the absurd statement of Abraham that this man was in torments because he had enjoyed the good things in his lifetime. If that’s the case, Abraham certainly deserved to be on the bad side of the gulf too. Wouldn’t he? Isn’t that an absurd statement on his part as to why the Rich Man was there?

Thanks for our discussion.

[Diamond]

You object to the form of the question in that it is a category error. Okay. But, you say death or mortality is never once alleged of a spirit - they cannot die. Isn’t that the same thing as being immortal? I’m just not following your reasoning.

In the sense of perpetuity of existence, yes, but the phraseology, "immortal spirit" just isn't used in the Bible. Mortality is predicated of the body/soul, and "immortality" only of God (because it is underived), and of the resurrection body.

You have your 1 Cor 2:11 which you will not let go, and I have my Gen 2:7 which I will not let go.

I agree with and embrace BOTH. You have never explained 1 Corinthians 2;11.

When God created the man he took the soil and fashioned a body - but it had no life. God then breathed into that body’s nostrils the breath of life and the man became a living soul.

Yes. Man became a living soul. A living creature. A living being.

I think you are saying (not sure) that the man has a spirit that is not the same thing as his soul. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Your mistake, as I have pointed out, is that you take a few verses such as Genesis 2:7 or Job 33:4, and because they refer to man as a created being, as a living creature, or a living soul, you make the logical leap of treating these verses as if they purported to be formal or technical definitions intended to define the entire constitution of man. They are not definitions at all. Even a cursory word study of the words, "breath", "life" and "spirit" shows that the words have many shades of meaning. One of the Job verses you cited, 32:8, even contradicts your denial that that spirit can denote the rational aspect of man's nature, as it also does in I Corinthians 2:11: Elihu told Job it was spirit in a person, the breath of God, which gave understanding

Tell me, if man’s spirit or his "life" has no personality, no individuality, and no separate existence, what does the following mean?

"But My servant Caleb, because ^R412 he has had a different spirit and has followed Me fully, I ^{R413 F191} will bring into the land which ^F192 he entered, and his descendants ^F193 shall take possession of it.
 

He had different breath? He had different wind?

--------------------------------------------------

Air coming out of or into the body of a living being. Two Hebrew terms are translated, “breath.” Generally neshamah is used in a milder manner to refer to the fact of breath in all forms of life. It is concerned with the physiological concept of breath with a primary emphasis on breath as a principle of life. By contrast, ruach refers more to the force of breath in the extreme experiences of life, judgment, and death. At times it is intensified by the idea of a blast of breath. It thus contains the expanded meanings, wind and spirit. Ruach refers more to the psychological idea of breath by relating it to one's own will or purpose. This is in keeping with its primary meaning of spirit, which either refers to the inner force of a person or the essential nature of God.

The term neshamah is often used with reference to God's breath. It identifies God as the source of life (Genesis 2:7; Job 27:3; Job 33:4; Daniel 5:23).

God is also the sovereign of life. He gave breath to humans initially in creation (Genesis 2:7), but He also takes breath away eventually at death (Genesis 7:22; Job 34:14). God has the power to restore life to the dead if He wishes to do so (Ezekiel 37:9). He controls nature and the weather by His breath (Job 37:9-10). More important is the impact of God's breath on national life, for He can breathe anger and judgment on threatening enemies bringing festive joy to God's people (Isaiah 30:33; compare Job 41:21).

Neshamah is used several times to refer to human breath. It identifies breath as fragile during the times of God's wrath and in natural calamities (Isaiah 2:21-22). Breath can become weak (Daniel 10:17); it is limited (Genesis 7:22; 1 Kings 17:17). Breath may be taken from a person, thus the experience of death (Joshua 11:11).

Breath (neshamah) refers to all living creatures. Those who breathe are expected to be responsive to God by offering Him praise (Psalms 150:6). Ultimately, they are responsible to God because He has the right to demand that they be put to death (Deuteronomy 20:16; Joshua 10:40).

Ruach describes the more intensified aspects of breath. It refers to God providing human life in the same manner as neshamah (Genesis 6:17). By breathing out speech, He created the heavens (Psalms 33:6). His breath also sustains life (Job 12:10; Psalms 104:29). By His breath He even restores life (Ezekiel 37:5-10). Repeatedly in Ezekiel 37:5-10 the term ruach occurs in word plays on its meanings as breaths wind, and spirit. It is used to affirm the possibility of giving life to the dry bones.

In a unique way, ruach is used to demonstrate how God monitors life. Breath is regarded as a sign of life (Genesis 7:15). It is also an indication that God is always watching our lives (Job 9:18). This became frustrating to Job because he wanted to be free from the pressure of knowing that God knew everything about him. God even knew the strained relationship between Job and his wife who came to detest Job's breath (Job 19:17).

Ruach describes God as threatening judgment. God breathed judgment on David's enemies (2 Samuel 22:14-18). As a rule, God's judgment was breathed through the experience of natural calamities (Psalms 18:15), expressing His anger (Isaiah 11:4; Job 4:9).

The New Testament contains a few references to breath as the life principle which God gives (Acts 17:25) and as the mighty wind at Pentecost (Acts 2:2). Acts 9:1 uses breath to express Saul's anger as a breathing of threats against the early Christians. In John 20:22 Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit upon His disciples. While the word pneuma parallels ruach in the Old Testament in its multiple meanings, it is translated primarily as spirit or Holy Spirit. In Revelation 13:15 it refers to the power to breathe life into the image of the beast. See Spirit; Life.

Human Spirits In both the Old and New Testaments, spirit is used of humans and of other beings. When used of humans, spirit is associated with a wide range of functions including thinking and understanding, emotions, attitudes, and intentions. Elihu told Job it was spirit in a person, the breath of God, which gave understanding (Job 32:8). When Jesus healed the paralytic, He perceived in His “spirit” that the religious leaders present were questioning His forgiving the man's sins (Mark 2:8).

Spirit is used extensively with human emotions including sorrow (Proverbs 15:4,Proverbs 15:13), anguish (Exodus 6:9; John 13:21), anger (Proverbs 14:29; Proverbs 16:32), vexation (Ecclesiastes 1:14), fear (2 Timothy 1:7), and joy (Luke 1:47).

A variety of attitudes and intentions are associated with spirit. Caleb had a different spirit than most of his contemporaries in that he followed the Lord wholeheartedly (Numbers 14:24). Sihon, king of Heshbon, had a stubborn spirit (Deuteronomy 2:30). 1 Kings 22:1 refers to a lying spirit. The psalmist called persons who have no deceit in their spirits, “blessed” (Psalms 32:2). A person's spirit can be contrite (Psalms 34:18), steadfast (Psalms 51:10), willing (Psalms 51:12), broken (Psalms 51:17), and haughty (Proverbs 16:18). The Gospel of Mark has numerous references to Jesus healing persons with unclean or foul spirits.

Spirit is used of nonphysical beings, both good and evil. Satan is called the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is at work in those who are disobedient (Ephesians 2:2).

One of the perennial points of conflict between the Sadducees and the Pharisees was over whether there are angels and spirits. The latter believed that there were such while the former denied that such existed. When the risen Christ appeared to the disciples, they were startled and frightened, thinking they were seeing a spirit. Jesus invited them to touch Him. He then reminded them that a spirit does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:37-39)

If that is correct, how did man’s spirit get created (I know, by God), but how did it get hooked up with the man’s body?

What you ask here is tantamount to an engineering question about HOW God did something, as if he hooked up this or that wire and connector, as if I could look at a diagram and explain it to you. I can't. I'm not that good at deciphering Divine wiring diagrams, if there are any. Man's spirit was formed within him at the time of his creation, as far as I can tell.

And, if at death the body dies, but this spirit continues to live on, is that when it goes to heaven?

If one is a Christian, then to Heaven yes. Absent from the body, present with the Lord. I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is FAR BETTER.

For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.
II Corinthians 5:4

knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me
II Peter 1:14

I will answer as much as I can of the rest of your post later. I'm out of time for right now.

Cordially,

[Truth Defender]

I enjoyed reading both of your discussions. However, let me interject another look at the "thief on the cross" for your enjoyment.

A passage often appealed to by Traditionalists who advocate the immediate conscious existence of some “immortal spirit-being” that survives the death of the physical body is Luke 23:43. Here Jesus makes a statement to one of two criminals, as that man was dying on an adjacent cross, who had previously said to Him, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” (vs. 42). To this man Jesus replied, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (NASB). The argument by Traditionalists is that this verse assures us the penitent thief would be “in Paradise” with Jesus THAT SAME DAY! Since the body of the thief was likely placed in the grave that same day, and since it was not resurrected, they conclude it must be his soul/spirit that went to Paradise that day. This, they declare, proves the conscious existence of some spirit-being trapped within one's physical body that is freed to greater existence by one's physical death.

It's interesting to note (and most seem to overlook this point) that the thief asked to be remembered when Jesus came in/into His kingdom! When exactly would that have been? Was this on the day of His death and burial? Most scholars would argue that it was not. Most state the victory was not truly won until at least the third day when Jesus Christ arose from the dead. Others will declare it was not until the ascension several weeks after that. Still others will point to the day of Pentecost, or even to the Parousia, as the ultimate coming of the kingdom. But almost nobody suggests our Lord came in or into His kingdom on the day of His death. Thus, some scholars see a problem early on in the traditional interpretation of this statement by Jesus: how did it accurately address the request of the dying thief on the cross with respect to the coming of the kingdom?

On the night of His betrayal and arrest, just hours before the statement to the thief on the cross, and during the establishment of the Lord's Supper, Jesus declared to His disciples, “I shall never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God” (Mark 14:25). Was Jesus expecting that kingdom to arrive in just a matter of hours? During the many days following the resurrection, our Lord was continuing to speak to the disciples about this kingdom, and the disciples even then were unclear as to when all of this was to occur (Acts 1:3-7). Thus, not even they were under the impression that this kingdom “came” on the day of Jesus’ death. Indeed, how was Jesus to “come into” His kingdom that day when He was dead?! Thus, there is much to suggest that the day of our Lord's death was not the day when He came into His kingdom. Some even interpret Paul's statement in 2 Tim. 4:1 about the kingdom of Christ to be an as yet unrealized (thus future) experience.

But the above is only a minor difficulty with the Traditionalist's position on this passage. There are far greater problems associated with their interpretation. However, before one can truly perceive the significance of our Lord's statement to this thief, one must first come to an understanding of the biblical concept of Paradise, which those who believe as Traditionists do have definitely failed to do.

The word Paradise is of Persian origin. It was incorporated into the Hebrew language during the time of Persian influence, and passed into the Greek language through its extensive use by Xenophon (c. 430–350 BC). The Hebrew word “pardes” occurs three times in the pages of the OT writings: Nehemiah 2:8, where it is translated “forest.” Ecclesiastes 2:5, with reference to ‘gardens and parks.” Song of Solomon 4:13, where the author refers to his bride as “an orchard of pomegranates.”

The word literally means “a park; a garden.” In time it came to signify “a place of exquisite pleasure and delight.” The Septuagint uses the Greek word “paradeisos” (transliteration: paradise) consistently in Genesis 2-3 for the “Garden of Eden.” It is also used in reference to the Jordan Valley (Genesis 13:10) and again of the Garden of Eden in Joel 2:3.

In the NT writings the Greek word “paradeisos” appears only three times:

1) 2 Corinthians 12:4 where Paul says he was “caught up into Paradise;” probably equivalent to the “third heaven” of vs. 2, which many biblical scholars suggest signifies being in the very presence of God in heaven (although this event may have been more vision than literal journey, as Paul himself acknowledges).

2) Revelation 2:7 where Christ promises those who overcome – “I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God.” This tree is in the very presence of God in heaven, positioned on either side of the river of the water of life which flows from the throne of God and of the Lamb (Rev. 22:1-5). Thus, the tree is said to be right before the throne of God in Heaven, which is identified as being “the Paradise of God.”

3) Luke 23:43 where we find the statement of Jesus to the thief on the cross.

“Later Jewish tradition locates ‘Paradise’ as an abode of the righteous dead in Hades, however the apocryphal books do not!” (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 4). Notice that it is according to later Jewish tradition that Paradise is said to be located in the Hadean realm. This is not the teaching of inspired Scripture. Not even the Apocrypha locates Paradise in Hades.

Nowhere in the Bible is Paradise ever associated with some so-called “intermediate state or realm” for the dead. This doctrine originated with men a couple of centuries after the Apostles, and is not taught in Scripture.

The word “Paradise,” as it is used in the New Testament writings, obviously refers to the eternal abode of God (what we generally term as “Heaven”). “In the NT ‘paradise’ means heaven in 2 Cor. 12:4 and Rev. 2:7. Accordingly it naturally denotes heaven in the remaining instance: Luke 23:43” (Davis Dictionary of the Bible, p. 569). “It is evident that Luke 23:43 speaks of a heavenly Paradise” (New International Commentary on the NT). “There can, therefore, be no doubt that paradise is heaven! The Fathers made a distinction between paradise and heaven which is not found in the Scriptures” (Charles Hodge). “Paradise is not a shadowy waiting-room, but a blissful abode within the very courts of heaven itself” (New International Commentary on the NT).

The Jews “have a multitude of fables on the subject” (Adam Clarke's Commentary, Vol. 5, p. 497), and their literature is “full of fancies and discrepancies” (New International Commentary on the NT). The Gospel of Nicodemus even maintains that this thief on the cross is still alive today in the original Garden of Eden somewhere on the earth's surface! According to the Narrative of Joseph, the penitent thief is the only resident of Paradise!

“Jesus, however, did not endorse the later Jewish tradition that paradise was at any time a compartment of Hades!” (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 4). Brother Curtis Dickinson wrote, “In the days of Jesus, the Jews held many widely diverse views regarding ‘Paradise,’ but none of them were based upon Divine revelation, so no weight should be attached to such opinions. We will stick to what is revealed in the Bible” (The Witness, Vol. 30, No. 8, August, 1990).

Thus, the first major point that needs to be made, and stressed, at this juncture is that Jesus was not speaking of some compartment in Hades or Sheol, but was rather referring to Heaven itself - the abode of the Father.

The biggest problem associated with Luke 23:43, however, is in connection with the word “today.” What did Jesus mean when He stated that this dying thief would be with Him in Paradise “today?” Was this really what Jesus was suggesting here, or have we perhaps misunderstood and thus misapplied this entire verse?

There are several significant problems associated with the assumption that the “soul” or “spirit” of this thief left his physical body at death to enter Paradise that day. First, it ASSUMES the inherent immortality of some “spirit-being” trapped inside the physical body which is freed by the death of that body. This is simply not taught in Scripture. The dead “sleep” in the dust of the ground awaiting the resurrection, they are not conscious spirits cavorting in some Hadean realm.

Another major problem, however, is that it seems clear from Scripture that Jesus Himself did not enter Paradise that day. Thus, how could the thief have been “with Him” that day if Jesus Himself was not there?!! It was not until about 43 days later (He arose the 3rd day and spent 40 days more with the disciples before ascending to the Father) that Jesus returned to the abode of God. At the empty tomb, on the day of His resurrection, He told Mary, who was clinging to Him, “I have not yet ascended to the Father!” (John 20:17). This was three days after His statement to the thief on the cross, and Jesus says He has not been there yet. Where was He? He was dead; buried in the tomb. “So shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40). Jesus was not in Heaven, He was in the grave. The promise to Jesus was that He would not be abandoned to the grave, nor would He “undergo decay” (Acts 2:27). He would be raised. If Jesus was not raised, but abandoned to the grave, all is lost (1 Cor. 15:12-19). No, Jesus was not in Paradise that day with the thief. They were both DEAD and BURIED.

By the way, an Islamic web site declared the Luke 23:43 & John 20:17 “discrepancy” as one of the major reasons for rejecting the Bible as authoritative for man today (101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible, by Shabir Ally). Thus, we even have pagans mocking Christianity for this perceived hermeneutical dilemma. And yet, as we shall see, it is all so completely unnecessary when this passage is correctly rendered and interpreted.

H. Leo Boles, in his Commentary on Luke, correctly observed, “Evidently Jesus did not mean that this robber would go with him to heaven that day, as it seems clear from other statements that Jesus did not go to heaven that day. His day of ascension came about forty days after that time” (p. 454). The thief on the cross was not with Jesus “that day” in Paradise for the very simple reason that Jesus Himself was not there!

Indeed, the raising of the dead and their entrance into God's presence “in Heaven” is a future event, not one that occurs at the instant of death. “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the Son of Man” (John 3:13). “Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. .... For David did not ascend to heaven...” (Acts 2:29, 34). Thus, it is unlikely the thief made it into the very presence of God before the throne on the day of his death. If David wasn't there, and Jesus wasn't there, and “no one” was there, then neither was the thief!

So, how do we deal with the apparent “problem” raised by the traditionalists when they quote Luke 23:43? “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise” (NASB). The very simple solution is to be found in an obvious error of punctuation. It is important to keep in mind that the early Greek manuscripts of the NT text did not contain punctuation, nor even spaces between the words (which was the space saving device known as “scriptio continua”). Even question marks were not used commonly in Greek manuscripts until the 9th century A.D. (Dr. Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 27). It would be many hundreds of years before punctuation would be added to the text of the New Testament, and this would be done by uninspired men with theological biases. It was not until 1205 A.D. that Stephen Langton (a professor in Paris and later the Archbishop of Canterbury) divided the Bible into chapters. Thus, it is important to note that the sectional and grammatical separations in Scripture are the devices of men and not of God!

The whole meaning of Luke 23:43 literally hinges on the placement of a single comma (a comma placed by fallible men)!! In the Luke 23:43 passage, the comma is placed BY TRADITIONALISTS prior to the word “today” (“Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise”). However, consider the following alternative:

“Truly I say to you this day,
you shall be with Me in Paradise.”

By moving the comma to a position after the word “today” (or “this day”) one alters the meaning of the sentence so that it is now no longer in conflict with the remainder of biblical doctrine on the nature of man and his eternal destiny. Grammatically, neither placement of the comma is technically correct in the Greek language. Thus, there is just as much grammatical justification for the placement of the comma after “today” as there is for placing it before that word. The theological biases of the early translators (influenced as they were by the heathen doctrines of immortal soulism and subterranean realms of bliss and torment) prompted them to select a placement of the comma that seemed to substantiate their own perceptions of the nature of man and his ultimate destiny. The problem with that selection of comma placement, however, is that it contradicted the remainder of God's Word on the subject!! A simple matter of repunctuation (as this procedure has come to be characterized) solves the problem and brings this verse back into harmony with the rest of biblical teaching.

“Translators have placed the comma before the adverb ‘today,’ not for grammatical reasons, but for the theological conviction that the dead receive their reward at death. One would wish that translators would limit themselves to translating the text and leave the task of interpretation to the reader” (Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 176).

Actually, the phrase “I say unto you this day” (or “today”) is “a common Hebrew idiom which is constantly used for very solemn emphasis” (E. W. Bullinger, Appendix 173, from The Companion Bible). Thus, it would not have been that unusual for Jesus to have said, “Truly I say to you today...” instead of applying the word “today” to the phrase which followed. His statement to the dying thief would certainly constitute a declaration with “solemn emphasis.” Curtis Dickinson wrote, “The Greek adverb here rendered ‘today’ appears in the Septuagint and the New Testament 221 times. In 170 of these places the adverb follows the verb it modifies. For example: ‘I declare to you this day, that ye shall surely perish’ (Deut. 30:18). Therefore, it would be natural to punctuate Luke 23:43 as follows: ‘Truly I say to you this day, you will be with me in Paradise.’ Paul uses a similar turn of phrase in Acts 20:26 – ‘I testify to you this day, that I am innocent of the blood of all men’” (The Witness, Vol. 30, No. 8, August, 1990).

In suggesting that the words of our Lord to the thief can only be understood by re-arranging the punctuation we are often accused of tampering with the text. This is a false accusation because any punctuation is an addition to the text. The correct punctuation can only be determined by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Of course, when we compare Scripture with Scripture we discover that there is no way Jesus was with this thief in Paradise that day, nor do the Scriptures teach immortal soulism, or Hadean holding areas for disembodied spirits, or judgment and reward prior to the resurrection on the Last Day. Thus, the placement of the comma that best harmonizes with the teaching of Scripture is to place it after “today.” “Thus, Jesus is not teaching conscious existence in paradise immediately after death in an intermediate state!” (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 4).

“This emphatic use of ‘today’ (or ‘this day’) is a common idiom in both Hebrew and Aramaic which are the two Semitic languages in which the Old Testament was written. The idiom is used to introduce a solemn statement. ‘I ... to you today’ when the verb is one of declaration, testification, command or oath. Some seventy occurrences of this formula are found in the Bible and forty-two are found in the Book of Deuteronomy (for example, Deut. 4:26)” (A. W. Fowler, “Jesus’ Promise to the Dying Thief,” an article in Resurrection Magazine, Autumn, 1991). “The earliest translation of the Greek New Testament was into the language of Palestine's nearest neighbor, Syria. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic. It is therefore not surprising that in one of the oldest Syriac manuscripts of the Gospels (5th century Curetonianus) the translator recognized the idiom and translated the passage, ‘Amen say I to you today that with me you will be in the garden of Eden.’ By introducing the word ‘that’ the translator removed the need for any punctuation to determine the sense. We therefore have a very ancient precedent for our interpretation which ante-dates all the English versions by hundreds of years” (ibid).

Is there any evidence among Bible translators, and Bible translations, for this repunctuation?

Actually, there is more than some realize. Consider the following:

“And he said to him: ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise’” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).

“And said to him the Jesus, Indeed I say to thee today, with me thou shalt be in the Paradise” (marginal reading in The Emphatic Diaglott, by B. F. Wilson in the 1800's).

German Bible translator L. Reinhardt, in a footnote to this verse, wrote, “The punctuation presently used (by most translators) in this verse is undoubtedly false and contradictory to the entire way of thinking of Christ.”

In the NT translation by the Reverent J. B. Rotherham (in the year 1878), a British clergyman and Bible translator, he translated this verse: “And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say, this day, with me shalt thou be in the paradise.” Admittedly, this is a rather ambiguous rendering. However, in the 1897 revision, Rotherham phrased the passage this way: “And he said unto him, Verily I say unto thee this day: With me shalt thou be in Paradise.”

E. W. Bullinger repunctuates and comments as follows: “ ‘And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say this day, with Me shalt thou be in Paradise.’ The word 'today' being made solemn and emphatic” (A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, p. 811).

“The English translation by Dr. Wm. Cureton of an old Syriac Version of the gospels agrees with that and renders Luke 23:43: ‘And he said to Jesus, My Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom. Jesus said to him, Verily I say to thee today that with me thou shalt be in the Eden's garden’” (This Means Everlasting Life, p. 281-282).

“And Jesus said to him, ‘Verily, to you am I saying today, with Me shall you be in paradise’” (The Concordant Literal New Testament).

George M. Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta has this footnote to the verse: “Ancient texts were not punctuated. The comma could come before or after today” (The New Testament From The Ancient Eastern Text).

“Indeed today I say to you, you shall be with Me in the paradise” (James L. Tomanek, The New Testament of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Annointed).

“Verily do I say unto thee today -- With me, thou shalt be, in Paradise” (Charles A. L. Totten, The Gospel of History).

The two volume encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 575) says in part (under the article "Paradise"): “Luke's account shows that an evildoer, being executed alongside Jesus Christ, spoke words in Jesus’ defense and requested that Jesus remember him when he got into his kingdom. Jesus' reply was: Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise.” Curtis Dickinson wrote, “It may be asked why translators of most modern versions do not place the comma after the ‘today’ so that the verse will harmonize with other scriptural teaching on death and resurrection. We might as well ask why they do not translate the Greek baptizo as ‘immerse’ or diakonos as ‘servant’ instead of merely spelling them with English letters. To do so would put the translation at odds with most denominational doctrine and almost insure its failure to be accepted. When the translators put Luke 23:43 into English, they punctuated it arbitrarily according to preconceived notions. An honest translator, when faced with more than one choice of translation, will choose the one that is in harmony with the rest of God's word” (The Witness, Vol. 30, No. 8, August, 1990).

Thus, I must conclude that the traditional teaching based on Luke 23:43 is entirely false, and that it is due to a false rendering of the passage (a misplaced comma). This passage in no way teaches the thief went to be with the Lord in Paradise that day. Instead, the Lord merely assured this thief that he would indeed be with Him in Paradise. When will this happen? When the thief is resurrected on that last great day! (See John 5:28–29.)

Okay, have at it :-)

[Overwatcher]

With 1 Cor 2:11 I most heartiy agree and do also embrace it completely. But, you and I disagree as to what the meaning is. When man became a living being, a living soul, a living creature by God’s breathing the breath, that is to say, the life into him, man thereupon became capable of certain things. He could experience the senses: he could see, hear, taste, smell and touch. Because he had a God-given brain, he could do these things; plus, he could also think, reason, and learn. He didn’t have a spirit inside him which did his smelling and tasting and thinking and reasoning and learning for him; he was capable of doing these things because he was alive and because he had a central nervous system.

Why was he alive? The equation is: body plus breath of life equals a living soul. But, somehow you are injecting a spirit into the mix.

Yes, while a man is alive, he can learn the things of a man by man’s spirit, which I believe is the intelligent aspect of a man. I believe this intelligent aspect of a man only exists when he is alive and because he is alive. But, when he dies the breath of life returns to God Who gave it, and man’s ability to think and reason and learn comes to an end.

KJV Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

When a man is resurrected he can take up where he left off. But in the meantime, in between time, we ain’t got fun. (Sorry, I was thinking of an old song).When we’re dead, we got nuthin’.

A man can also learn the things of God because of the Spirit of God. A man cannot learn the things of God by man’s spirit. He can be the smartest man in the world, but he can only learn the things of God by the Spirit of God.

Sometimes people say a man has a gentle spirit. Or, that he is a gentle spirit. I don’t think they mean he is a spirit. As you point out in your numerous references, there are all kinds of spirits. Yes, there are lying spirits, evil spirits, etc. And the word spirit is used in so many different ways. But, when used of a man it often refers to an aspect or aspects of a man. I do indeed go back to certain passages such as Gen 2:7 and take them to give the definition of the entire man. But, again a man has many different aspects to him.

Man is not a spirit. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be a man. The Bible talks of three classes of created beings (at least that’s all I can find – maybe you can help me find some additional classes of beings). All I can find are angels, spirits and man. Man never becomes an angel when he dies. That would be a positive downgrade. Nor does he become a spirt being. And the reverse never happens. Angels never become men, nor do spirits. At least that’s what I see. When among the living, a man is a live man. When he is in the state of death (Sheol, Hades), he is a dead man. When he is resurrected from among the dead, he lives again because of the One Who is the resurrection and the life.

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. 15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

[Overwatcher]

Amen, to most of what you said. Wow, someone who isn’t afraid to break with the traditionalists!

I am not a fan of Bertand Russell, but he had some cool quotes, and one of my favorites is: “The fact that on opinion is widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” From his “Marriage and Morals (1929) chapter 5.

Anyway, here is something I wrote a few years ago. I read every word of yours, I hope you read mine and also enjoy.

TODAY THOU SHALT BE WITH ME IN PARADISE

Today, (the comma’s the thing)

“Man, it’s dusty and windy out here this day. Looks like it’s going to rain too. Gee, I sure hope this business trip to Jerusalem turns out to be more productive than the last one. We’ll see. My trusty mule, Sarah, and I are getting pretty close to the city now.

Yecchh! There’s that place – the Jews call it ‘the place of the skull.’ I think another name for it is Golgotha. There’s an awful lot of commontion today. Uh oh, looks like the Roman soldiers are busy crucifying some poor bastards. How many are there? Three? Four? Nope, looks like there might be five of them this day.”

[A passing traveler narrating a scene, marvelling at the conversations going on amongst the various condemned men, especially one taking place between two of the men, each hanging on a cross].

“One of them is rebuking another who had been chiding the middle guy, saying, ‘If you are the Christ, then save yourself and save us,’ or something to that effect. Now the one guy on the middle guy’s other side is saying, ‘Lord, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom.’ It’s interesting that a man so near death would ask another ‘man’ also nearly dead to remember him when He came into His kingdom. What’s that all about? Is this middle guy some sort of king? At least that’s what the sign says above his head. Well, where’s his army to defend him? What kind of a king is that, with no one lifting a finger to help him?

[This has to be divine inspiration, big time! Think about it. God wanted this dialog to be preserved in His written word and relayed to mankind. Was it some frivolous and inconsequential incident? Or, was it truly important, with some measure of light for us in it?]

“Well, looks like the Romans are in a real hurry – oh, that’s right it’s one of the Jews’ Sabbaths coming up, so they are going to want those bodies taken down and out of there. The soldiers are getting ready to finish those poor guys off by breaking their leg bones, so they won’t be able to prop themselves up much longer. Plus, the shock I’m sure will cause death almost instantaneously. Yep, there goes the first one. Ouch, that’s gotta hurt! Then the second poor bastard. Wait. What’s going on with that guy in the middle? One of the soldiers is taking a spear and – oh, man! He stuck it right in that poor guy’s side. Lots of blood gushing, now water is coming out of his side. He’s definitely a goner. Now they are back to the leg bone crush with the fourth and fifth ones. Wonder why they stuck a spear through that middle guy and didn’t break his legs? Oh, well. Gotta keep moving along. Nothing more to see here.”

KJV John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken

Let’s take a look at the internal evidence – was it 3 or 5 crucified that day? Why is this even important?

KJV Matthew 27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. 39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads, 40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross. 41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said, 42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him. 43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God. 44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

KJV Luke 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with him to be put to death. 33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left. 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. 35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God. 36 And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him, and offering him vinegar, 37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Jews, save thyself. 38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. 40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. 42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

KJV John 19:16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

KJV John 19:31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. 32 Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

KJV John 19:34 But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

Two thieves (lestai) Mat 27:38 and two malefactors (kakourgoi) Luke 23:32.

Notice that both the thieves reviled Jesus Mat 27:44 but only one of the malefactors “railed on Him.” Luke 23:39. The other malefactor is the one who spoke to Jesus after rebuking his associate Luke 23:40-42. The two malefactors were “led with Him to be put to death.” One was on either side with Jesus in the middle, then and there “crucified Him and the malefactors, one on the right hand and the other on the the left.”
Then the two thieves were crucified later, after the soldiers divided His garments and were looking on Him.

The order of placement, therefore, would be a thief, a malefactor, the Lord Jesus, a malefactor, and a thief. So, as the soldiers went along, they brake the leg of the first, then the next, then they came to Jesus and saw He was already dead. Otherwise, they would have had to break the legs of the first, then to have passed by Jesus, break the legs of the second, and then would have had to go back to Jesus. As E. W. Bullinger stated in Appendix 164 of his Companion Bible, “But they came to Him after they had broken the legs of the first two.” They brake the legs of the first and of the other. ... Here the Greek is allos, which is the other (the second) of two when there are more.” So, I think a good case could be made for the possibility that there were four others crucified with our Lord that day.

This is important because it is an example of how man’s traditions help nullify or modify the Word of God. What’s important? The truth? The accurate reporting of the truth? Of course, the important thing is the truth of the sacrifice made for us that day, not how many were killed that day. But, how many people have believed all their lives that it was three who were killed that day? A good case I think can be made for there being five instead.

Again, the purpose is to get people to think on these things, to get them thinking correctly and accurately. And, if you are going to expound upon it, get it right.

A COMMA, A COMMA, MY KINGDOM FOR A COMMA!

Are you willing to base your belief about death and the afterlife on an arbitrary comma placement?

KJV Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Remember that in the original manuscripts there were no punctuation marks of any kind. So, where does the comma go?

1.)“And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
2.)“And Jesus sais unto him, Verily I say unto thee To day, thou shalt be with me in paradise.”

And, who gets to decide where the comma goes? It’s a matter of interpretation, isn’t it? A very scholarly person answered me, “Not really, it is quite possible that the early church fathers interpreted this for us. Have you looked to see? Also, we have the rest of the Bible as a commentary to help us determine where the punctuation goes.”

My response to him was that the early church fathers are not my favorite authority for anything; consequently, what they have interpreted for us may, or may not be accurate, or relevant. (And yes, I have looked at much of their works). Also, I do think the rest of the Bible gives us excellent light for determining the placement of the comma. However, no matter what you think, it is a clear principle of translation that anything not in the original text becomes a matter of interpretation. Again I say, I have every right to determine where I think the comma should go.

As E.W. Bullinger stated in Appendix 173 of his Companion Bible, “The interpretation of this verse depends entirely on punctuation, which rests wholly on human authority, the Greek manuscripts having no punctuation of any kind till the ninth century, and then it is only a dot (in the middle of the lline) separating each word.”

More importantly, what would a Hebrew of that time period think about where the comma should go? Again quoting Bullinger, “The verb ‘to say,’ when followed by hoti, introduces the ipsissima verba of what is said; and answers to our quotation marks. So here (in Luke 23:43), in the absence of hoti = ‘that,’ there may be a doubt as to the actual words included in the dependent clause. But the doubt is resolved (1) by the common Hebrew idiom, ‘I say unto thee this day,’ which is constantly used for very solemn emphasis; as well as (2) by the usage observable in other passages where the verb is connected with the Greek semeron = today.”

The statement that we have the rest of the Bible as a commentary to help us determine where the punctuation goes is correct. We are about to see where the comma might properly belong. Here are some examples of Hebraisms which indicate that the Lord could and would have spoken the way He did that day:

KJV Deuteronomy 4:39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. 40 Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever.

KJV Deuteronomy 7:11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

KJV Deuteronomy 8:1 All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers.

KJV Deuteronomy 8:19 And it shall be, if thou do at all forget the LORD thy God, and walk after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I testify against you this day that ye shall surely perish.

KJV Deuteronomy 10:13 To keep the commandments of the LORD, and his statutes, which I command thee this day for thy good?

KJV Deuteronomy 11:26 Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse;

KJV Deuteronomy 15:15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

KJV Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.

KJV Acts 26:2 I think myself happy, king Agrippa, because I shall answer for myself this day before thee touching all the things whereof I am accused of the Jews:

Get the picture? A Hebrew speaking something very important, especially to another Hebrew would use this idiom to emphasize the solemnity of his words. So, the Lord Jesus, a Hebrew, speaking to another Hebrew, as they both were about to die, used this idiom to emphasize the impact of His words.

Oh, by the way, there is some evidence which can cast doubt upon interpreting this passage as meaning that Jesus and the malefactor would be in paradise that very day. Consider Jesus’ own words in:

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

KJV Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

KJV 1 Corinthians 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

KJV John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

It looks like it wasn’t that day after all. The soonest it could possibly be was three days later.

Also, in the Greek it is the paradise, the definite article being present. Which paradise was Jesus talking about? The one in Isaiah 51:3?

KJV Isaiah 51:3 For the LORD shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody.

Is all this much ado about nothing? You bet it is much ado, but it is not about nothing. People constantly use this argument about being in paradise that very day as support for their ideas about what happens at death. All I am asking is that you seriously consider whether this arbitrary comma placement is a suitable pillar to base your belief on what happens at death.

[Truth Defender]

Amen, to most of what you said. Wow, someone who isn’t afraid to break with the traditionalists!

At one time in my life I shuddered with what I found the Scriptures saying to me, and all reading it without bias. But eventually I tested the waters and found that what I was teaching was well accepted by others, and even a few Bible College professors who were well versed in the Greek of the LXX and the New Testament. Thusly, I continued my studies and harmonized the teachings of the Old and New Testament into a solid theological whole. I've never turned back from that.

I am not a fan of Bertand Russell, but he had some cool quotes, and one of my favorites is: “The fact that on opinion is widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” From his “Marriage and Morals (1929) chapter 5.

He's no favorite of mine also. But that doesn't stop me from reading what he wrote. The same goes for the so-called "church fathers" whom so many love to quote as if what they said was "gospel truth."

Is all this much ado about nothing? You bet it is much ado, but it is not about nothing. People constantly use this argument about being in paradise that very day as support for their ideas about what happens at death. All I am asking is that you seriously consider whether this arbitrary comma placement is a suitable pillar to base your belief on what happens at death.

I agree 100% on that! You have done a good job in what you wrote, and other than 5 people being hung up on a cross, I have not much to say. I happend to think that it is just three, not five. I take the malefactors to be the thiefs, and consider the terminology Matthew used versus the terminology Luke used. Matthew was a Hebrew, Luke a Greek doctor. Their backgrounds controlled their use of language. But it really doesn't matter all that much. Matthew uses the term that we can rightly translate as "robbers" - so does Mark - and Luke uses a Greek term we can translate as criminals, i.e., thiefs, robbers or crooks. Malefactors is an old English term, mainly used in England; and is found in the KJV of the Bible (AV). Other than that, what you wrote is well thought out: I like the verses you quoted!

[Overwatcher]

Thanks. We are in agreement, except for the five vs. three issue, which is not important. What is important is what happened that day, right? But, did you catch the picture on page 187 of the Appendices, Appendix 164 in Bullinger’s The Companion Bible? The five crosses, that is? Ploubezere near Lannion? Plus, he gives further details as to why it was five THAT DAY.

Also, did you happen to catch my post on the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus? Just wondering what your take is on that.

[Truth Defender]

Thanks. We are in agreement, except for the five vs. three issue, which is not important. What is important is what happened that day, right? But, did you catch the picture on page 187 of the Appendices, Appendix 164 in Bullinger’s The Companion Bible? The five crosses, that is? Ploubezere near Lannion? Plus, he gives further details as to why it was five THAT DAY.

Agreed, and yes, I've went through the book, although pictures don't really impress me. Also, his explanation of the five, to me, isn't all the impressive. But that's my opinion, for what it's worth.

Also, did you happen to catch my post on the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus? Just wondering what your take is on that.

Yes, I read it, and am tempted to post what I think about that parable or story. The Web site, kenfortier.com, has a few articles on this parable that explore it fairly good. You should check out that Web site.

I'm working on an article to start a new thread on. It's about the term "soul" and what God wanted to reveal to us about it. I'm sure it will be ridiculed :-) and ignored by most posters. It will take a few more days to finish it.

[Truth Defender]

THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN & LAZARUS by Al Masey

Luke 16:19-31 contains a story told by Jesus to a group of scribes and Pharisees who were grumbling and scoffing at Him (Luke 15:1-3; 16:14-15a) because He dared to show concern for tax-gatherers and sinners who were "coming near Him to listen to Him." These religious elitists regarded themselves as superior to other men, and had little to no concern for those less fortunate, nor for those they considered beneath contempt (which was most people, even many of their own fellow religionists who were not of their particular faction or sect).

The story Jesus conveyed to these rigid religionists and sectarian separatists has come to be known as The Rich Man and Lazarus. It was obviously given that day to impress an eternal truth upon the hearts and minds of these troubled scribes and Pharisees. The basic message, in my view, is that our eternal destiny is determined this side of physical death, and once we breathe our last and return to the dust of the ground our fate is forever fixed. Thus, if we expect to receive mercy and compassion at the judgment, we had better display it to others during our sojourn here on earth. "For judgment will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy" (James 2:13). This was a moral Truth the scribes and Pharisees desperately needed to hear, and Jesus conveyed it to them that day in the form of this story. After all, it was His common practice to convey lasting Truths in the form of common stories (Matthew 13:34 -- "...and He did not speak to them without a parable").

Most people have little problem with the major message of this passage of Scripture. The problem arises when seeking to determine the nature of the account itself. Is this a literal, historical account, or is this a parable? This has been hotly debated for many centuries, with reputable scholars and devoted disciples taking stands on both sides of the issue. My personal belief is that this is a parable, and therefore the figures employed should not be pressed into service to formulate a literal picture of disembodied souls or spirits in some Hadean holding place prior to the resurrection and judgment of the Last Day. Jesus simply told a parable to convey a spiritual truth to those still living, not to give us a peek into "the afterlife" to satisfy mankind's morbid curiosity. Albert Barnes said, "Many have supposed that our Lord here refers to a 'real history,' and gives an account of some man who had lived in this manner; but of this there is no evidence. The probability is that this narrative is to be considered as a parable" (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament).

Dillard Thurman, the late editor of Gospel Minutes, wrote, "After having studied this matter for over fifty years, I still firmly believe this is a parable. It begins with the identical introduction as that in Luke 16:1 -- 'There was a certain rich man...'" (Gospel Minutes, August 13, 1982). The parable just before the one in Luke 16:1 begins "A certain man..." (Luke 15:11). Thus, there seems to be a string of parables here each beginning similarly: "A certain man" (Luke 15:11) .... "A certain rich man" (Luke 16:1) .... "A certain rich man" (Luke 16:19). The context also clearly reveals that each of these stories was told to the same group of people: the grumbling, scoffing scribes and Pharisees. "This parable is addressed to the Pharisees, to whom Christ would scarcely have communicated details about the other world, on which He was so reticent in His teaching to the disciples" (Dr. Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Book IV, p. 278).

The problem we are faced with regarding our present topical discussion is that most of those in the traditional camp appeal to Luke 16:19-31 as a literal, historical account of the current disposition of disembodied spirit-beings. It has become the "crown jewel" in the apologetics of those who advocate an immortal soul and the perpetual torture of the unredeemed. Sidney Hatch said, "Many times over the years, I have observed that when all else fails, believers in the immortality of the soul will turn to the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This scripture, they apparently believe, is indisputable evidence that men, at death, go to a spirit world" (Daring To Differ: Adventures in Conditional Immortality, p. 88).

"The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is often cited as the chief cornerstone in support of the postulate of man's inherent immortality and the endless duration of the incorrigibly wicked in sin and misery. It is frequently invoked to silence all dissent or question as to Immortal-Soulism. It is persistently set forth as proving beyond all peradventure that the souls of both the godly and the ungodly continue to live on uninterruptedly after death, separate from the body -- but which is simply Plato's contention that death is identical with life, only in another sphere" (Leroy Edwin Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages Over the Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, p. 234).

When dealing with a parable, as the reader will discover most reputable scholars believe this account to be, one must be very cautious not to assume literal meaning and application for the figures employed. The figures of a parable convey a message or truth, or embellish that message or truth in some way, but they themselves do not constitute that message or truth itself. Thus, one must never seek to base doctrine upon mere figures and symbols employed in figurative language. Dr. Edersheim stressed, "it will be necessary in the interpretation of this parable to keep in mind that its parabolic details must not be exploited, nor doctrines of any kind derived from them, either as to the character of the other world, the question of the duration of future punishments, or possible moral improvement of those in Gehinnom. All such things are foreign to the parable" (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Book IV, p. 277). "We must not look in this parabolic language for Christ's teaching about the 'after death'" (ibid, p. 279). "Doctrinal statements should not be drawn from parabolic illustrations" (ibid, p. 282).

Professor D. R. Dungan, in his classic book Hermeneutics: The Science of Interpreting the Scriptures, observed, "The parable in Luke 16:19-31, of the rich man and the poor man, has been made to mean almost everything within the range of theological speculation" (p. 234). Parables were not intended to be interpreted literally (as is, for example, historical narrative), something legitimate biblical hermeneutists clearly recognize. Parables are a distinct literary form. "The very reason we do not feel compelled to interpret the parables historically is that they are presented in a somewhat stylized fashion -- the reader or hearer is immediately aware that they belong to a different genre (literary type)" (Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, p. 106).

"Strictly speaking, the parable belongs to a style of figurative speech which constitutes a class of its own" (Dr. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, p. 276). "The general design of parables, as of all other kinds of figurative language, is to embellish and set forth ideas and moral truths in attractive and impressive forms" (ibid, p. 277).

The ancient Jews (as well as the pagans) were very fond of such stories, and there is a body of evidence, and thus some legitimate, scholarly speculation, that Jesus may well have employed a rather well-known contemporary story as He spoke to these scribes and Pharisees, a story with which these religious leaders would have been very familiar. This has led to much documentation of such accounts, many of which predate the Lord's story and are most striking in their similarity. "It seems appropriate to reopen this question and ask: Where should the origin of this parable be placed?" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 4, p. 267). Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible informs us that "much of the study of the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Latin: 'rich man') in the 20th century has focused on possible literary antecedents" (p. 796-797).

"This parable is not theology. It is a vivid story, not a Baedeker's guide to the next world. Such stories as this were current in Jesus' day. They are found in rabbinical sources, and even in Egyptian papyri" (The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 8, p. 290). "Similar stories existed in Egypt and among the rabbis; Jesus could easily have adapted this tradition to his own purpose" (The Jerome Biblical Commentary). "This parable follows a story common in Egyptian and Jewish thought. .... This parable does not intend to give a topographical study of the abode of the dead, it is built upon and thus confirms common Jewish thought" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 3, p. 94). The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1 (online version) states that the imagery of this parable "is plainly drawn from the popular representations of the unseen world of the dead which were current in our Lord's time." "Jesus told this story to reinforce the fact that the riches of the Pharisees were not necessarily a sign of God's approval. Some interpreters suggest that the kernel of the story was a popular story of those times and possibly derived from an Egyptian source" (New Commentary on the Whole Bible, based on the classic commentary of Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown).

Josephus (a Jewish historian, c. 37-100 A.D.), in his work Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades (in which he notes that the concept of a soul being created immortal by God is "according to the doctrine of Plato"), presents a very similar story to that of our Lord's, including many of the same figures Jesus employed. Yes, he may have borrowed from the Lord's parable, but it is equally possible both were aware of such stories current in their culture. Several good reference works document and describe in some detail a good number of these stories that our Lord may have adapted to His own needs (Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, p. 797 .... Dr. James Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Vol. 2, p. 18 .... The Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 8, p. 289 .... The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 4, p. 267 .... Edersheim's The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Book IV, p. 280-281 .... Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 174-176).

My own personal conviction is that Jesus used or adapted a popular folktale well-known to His hearers for the purpose of conveying, by a means they would best comprehend and most easily remember, an ageless truth. "Jesus was accustomed to speak the language of His hearers in order to reach their understandings and hearts. And it is noteworthy how, when He employed Jewish imagery, He was wont to invest it with new significance" (Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, Vol. 2, p. 18).

"In the story, then, of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus has put them down with one of their own superstitions. ... He used their own ideas to condemn them. ... It is simply a case of taking what others believe, practice, or say, and using it to condemn them" (Sidney Hatch, Daring To Differ: Adventures in Conditional Immortality, p. 91). "Since the elements of the story are taken from the Pharisees' own traditions, they are judged out of their own mouths" (ibid, p. 92).

It should be noted that the apostle Paul employed a similar device when he sought to impress upon certain Corinthian brethren the truth regarding the resurrection, and spoke of their practice of baptism for the dead. By speaking of this practice in his own teaching, and by not condemning it, Paul was certainly not thereby endorsing it. Rather, he merely used a practice then current among certain readers, to whom he was addressing his remarks, to drive home the truth to their hearts and minds (1 Corinthians 15:29).

Another similar situation occurs in John 9:1-3. With regard to a man born blind, the disciples asked Jesus, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" Some of the Jews (thanks to Hellenistic influence on Jewish theology with regard to the pagan doctrines of the preexistence & immortality of souls) believed souls existed prior to their being placed in a physical body at birth. Thus, these preexistent souls could sin during this prior life, for which they would be punished during the present life (possibly by being born with some infirmity or deformity). Oddly enough, Jesus did not speak out against this pagan notion, but merely instructed His disciples that neither this man nor his parents had sinned so as to cause Him to be born blind. Contrary to what some might think, Jesus did not go around debunking every Jewish or pagan myth that had arisen in their theology due to pagan influence .... Indeed, He at times seems to have used them in His dialogue with such persons to convey deeper eternal realities. This is exactly what I believe is being done with the parable of the rich man and the poor beggar.

A far more important reason for regarding the story of the rich man and Lazarus as figurative rather than literal/historical, however, is the obvious conflict with the inspired Scriptures that occurs when it is regarded as an actual account of real people and real events. These, in my estimation, are extremely serious contradictions against revealed Truth. Notice the following problems associated with a literal, historical interpretation of Luke 16:19-31.

#1 --- It would teach that judgment and punishment of the dead has occurred prior to the resurrection and judgment on that great and final day! The Scriptures clearly and repeatedly teach that judgment and punishment (as well as reward) occur following the resurrection, NOT prior to it. The "blessed" Theophylact (perhaps the most learned exegete of the Greek Church during the 11th-12th century A.D.) observed, "This is a parable and not, as some have foolishly imagined, something which actually occurred. For good things have not yet been allotted to the righteous, nor punishments to the sinners" (The Explanation of the New Testament).

Until a decision has been rendered in judgment before the Great Throne, is it really reasonable and biblical to proclaim that men are cast into torment or carried off to a state of bliss? This would constitute judgment, sentencing and execution prior to the judgment, sentencing and execution on that Great Day following resurrection. "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done" (Revelation 22:12). See also Matthew 25:31-46.

Judgment will occur "when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him" (Matt. 25:31). THEN the dead, who have been raised from the dust of the ground, will undergo judgment, and a great separation will occur, and some will "go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matt. 25:46). This judging and punishing does not occur prior to the resurrection on that last day! And yet if this parable is taken literally, it clearly contradicts the remainder of biblical teaching on this matter.

William Tyndale (1484 - 1536), in responding to Sir Thomas More, wrote -- "And ye, in putting them (the departed souls) in heaven, hell and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul prove the resurrection." Tyndale argued that if souls were already in either bliss or misery, "then what cause is there of the resurrection?" And what cause is there even of judgment?! In another part of this same writing, Tyndale said -- "The true faith putteth forth the resurrection, which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers, denying that, did put that the soul did ever live. And the Pope joineth the spiritual doctrine of Christ and the fleshly doctrine of philosophers together; things so contrary that they cannot agree. And because the fleshly-minded Pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the Scripture to stablish it. If the soul be in heaven, tell me what cause is there for the resurrection?"

With regard to such prior rewards or punishments, Dillard Thurman wrote, "There is never a hint in God's word that this takes place before the general resurrection at the coming of Christ, our Savior!" (Gospel Minutes, Feb. 1, 1985). "You will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age" (Daniel 12:13). "The day is coming ... the day which I am preparing," says the Lord of hosts; a day "burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze ... and they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet" (Malachi 4:1-3). This is not the day of one's death, but that Final Day when "those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake" to judgment and punishment (Daniel 12:2). This parable of the rich man and Lazarus, however, if taken literally, stands in direct and dramatic opposition to these divine Truths conveyed repeatedly in both OT and NT writings.

"A literal interpretation of the parable contradicts some fundamental biblical truths. If the narrative is literal, then Lazarus received his reward and the rich man his punishment, immediately after death and before the judgment day. But the Bible clearly teaches that the rewards and punishments, as well as the separation between the saved and the unsaved, will take place on the day of Christ's coming" (Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 174).

"To use this parable as proof that men receive their rewards at death is squarely to contradict Christ Himself, who explicitly states that the righteous and the wicked receive their reward 'when the Son of man shall come in his glory.' He definitely placed the recompense at the resurrection, the time of harvest, and end of the world" (Leroy Edwin Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages Over the Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, p. 261). "Furthermore, if the narrative is literal, then the beggar received his reward and the rich man his punishment immediately upon death, in the interim before the judgment day and the consequent separation of the good and evil. But such a procedure is repugnant to all justice. Paul said that God 'hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness' (Acts 17:31). That was still future in apostolic times" (ibid, p. 262).

"The Pharisees had made God's Word void, as concerns the condition of the dead, by their 'traditions' derived from pagan Platonic philosophy, which in turn had been borrowed from Egypt, Babylon, and Persia. So it was that Dives is here pictured as in a place of torment, living in insufferable flames. It was simply Hebraized Platonism, and was in no way condoned or endorsed by Christ" (ibid, p. 262-263). Thus, on this one point alone we must completely reject the notion that this account is either literal or historical. To accept it as such places it in direct conflict with the remainder of Scripture on the subject of final punishment. Thus, for this reason alone the particulars of the parable must be regarded as figurative.

#2 --- To embrace this parable as literal, historical narrative would also make one guilty of promoting the view of a mortal man inherently possessing an immortal soul or spirit. Such is simply not taught in Scripture, and constitutes pagan dualism. The Lord "alone possesses immortality" (1 Tim. 6:16), and immortality for man (the whole man) is entirely derived, and will not be "put on" until after the resurrection, "at the last trumpet," and only then by the redeemed (1 Cor. 15:50f).

In point of fact, this parable doesn't even mention "souls" or disembodied "spirits." That is an assumption of biased interpreters. If this account is of disembodied spirits (ethereal beings devoid of bodies and bodily organs), then is it not strange that the account speaks of eyes, a tongue and a finger? --- real physical body parts! And what relief would a drop of water on a tongue serve to a spirit? Would it provide any relief? Would it not vaporize in the flame?! Or is all of this figurative also, just like the rest of the parable? I believe that is exactly the case! "Contenders for literalism suppose that the rich man and Lazarus were disembodied spirits, destitute of bodies," yet "they are portrayed as existing physically, despite the fact that the rich man's body was duly buried in the grave. Was his body carried away into Hades together with his soul by mistake?" (Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? -- A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 173). Brother Dillard Thurman declared that this "fanciful notion" of some bodily presence in a Hadean holding area "won't hold any more water than the rich man could dip his finger in! If fingers and tongues were still in the grave, or if they were figurative, then this must be accepted as a parable, and treated as such!" (Gospel Minutes, June 22, 1984). "The passage says nothing about souls or spirit-beings. Furthermore, this would contradict the entire teaching of Scripture, from Genesis 2:7 on, regarding the nature of man. A soul is a living breathing creature, not a ghost" (Sidney Hatch, Daring To Differ: Adventures in Conditional Immortality, p. 90).

Again, nothing is said whatsoever in this parable about either "souls" or "spirits." There is absolutely no indication at all that Jesus is talking about some "immortal something" trapped in our physical bodies that flies off to some Hadean holding area at the moment of physical death. To promote such a view is contrary to the teaching of Scripture on the nature of man. Jesus simply made use of a common story, which reflected current Jewish/pagan thinking, to convey a moral message to His hearers.

#3 Scripture also makes it abundantly clear that the GRAVE (Hades, Sheol) is not a place of conscious activity for the dead. The dead "sleep" in the dust of the ground, they are not holding conversations with other departed, disembodied spirits across vast chasms. "The Scriptures teach that the death state is one of quiet, silent, unconscious sleep. How much more evidence is necessary to convince any reasonable person that this is simply a story which Jesus told in order to make a point with His adversaries?" (ibid). "The resurrection from the grave will be the time for happiness and bliss for God's saints. It is not when they are yet asleep in Jesus" (Dillard Thurman, Gospel Minutes, Feb. 1, 1985).

"A literal interpretation of the parable also contradicts the uniform testimony of the Old and New Testaments that the dead, both righteous and ungodly, lie silent and unconscious in death until the resurrection day" (Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, Immortality or Resurrection? - A Biblical Study on Human Nature and Destiny, p. 174).

#4 "Jesus was also not teaching that lost souls have the privilege of praying to patriarchs long dead, who will answer from another realm!" (Dillard Thurman, Gospel Minutes, Aug. 13, 1982). If this parable is to be taken literally, however, we have lost souls praying to people like Abraham, and Abraham answering! There is apparently (if taken literally) a "vast gulf" between the two "compartments of Hades," and yet are we to suppose they can freely converse among each other? I guess sound carries well in the spirit realm!!

"Since some deride the Catholics for praying to 'the Virgin Mary,' a host of saints, etc., how can we keep a straight face and advocate that folk offer their prayers to Abraham after death? But not only did the rich man pray, his prayer was answered!" (Dillard Thurman, Gospel Minutes, June 22, 1984). "But there is also a flaw in Abraham! He acts as judge and jury, by-passing both God and His Son with his decree. He even accepts the term 'father,' though Jesus taught 'And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven' (Matt. 23:9). If this be a factual, historical report, it opens up Pandora's Box .... and raises more devils than we can cast out!" (ibid).

As Leroy Edwin Froom points out in his massive two volume work (over 2000 pages of extensive research), "a literal application breaks down under the weight of its own absurdities and contradictions" (The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers: The Conflict of the Ages Over the Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, p. 260). "Pagan Platonism, polluting the Jewish faith, which Jesus cited but did not endorse in this legendary fable-parable, should never be allowed to corrupt sound Christian doctrine" (ibid, p. 269). "The story of Dives and Lazarus was never designed to teach conditions on the other side of death. That is an extraneous contention that has been introduced without warrant. It is fallacious as an argument and is unworthy of the name of sound exegesis" (ibid).

"Parables were used by the Lord to teach truths; and after the primary truths are gleaned, the parable should not be distended and distorted to cover that which the Lord did not intend!" (Dillard Thurman, Gospel Minutes, Aug. 13, 1982). This is exactly what many have done with this particular parable of our Lord. They have forced literalism upon the figures of this story, and in so doing they actually perpetuate the pagan perceptions which found their way into the doctrines of ancient Judaism and Christendom. Any passage of Scripture taken out of context becomes a pretext! In this case, a pretext for the continued promotion of false teaching with regard to the nature of man and his eternal destiny.

For many reasons, therefore, I completely and unequivocally reject Luke 16:19-31 as anything other than a parable, likely based on common lore, representing the eternal truth that our eternal destinies are determined by our actions and attitudes in this life, and that one's fate is forever fixed at death. To fabricate a theology of disembodied spirits and Hadean holding cells and everlasting torture of the wicked from this passage is an unconscionable abuse of biblical interpretation and should be rejected by all disciples intent upon discerning and declaring Truth rather than perpetuating the tedious tenets of paganistic Tradition.

Note: While this article is not written by me, it incorporates and summarizes the conclusions I have reached in my own personal research on this parable. I’ve posted a similar article on this in another thread that I wrote. It is very comparable to the above article, and complements it. Other articles on this parable can be found on kenfortier.com and other Web sites. It is the “conditionalist” view of the nature of man.

[Diamond]

Also, I am having a difficult time following your reasoning concerning Paul the Pharisee and the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus. Paul believed in resurrection, but I find no indication he believed in disembodied spirits. As I have mentioned, a disembodied spirit is a contradiction in terms. If a spirit had a body, it wouldn’t be a spirit. Sorry for not following your reasoning. I just don’t get it. I don’t see why Paul would object to my version of the story, especially considering the context and the setting when and where Jesus was talking, and to whom.

The Sadducees did not believe in disembodied sprits either, just like you. However, the Pharisees did, as can be proven from the Talmud. Paul solemnly affirmed in a dispute before both the Pharisees and the Saducees on this point that he as a Pharisee adhered to the Pharisees with respect to BOTH tenets: 1. spirits; angel or human, and 2. the resurrection. Paul claimed the same belief as the Pharisees, as opposed to the beliefs of the Sadducees, who denied both disembodied spirits and the resurrection. For the third time, I am telling you that this particular doctrine of the Pharisee that you ridicule, Paul solemnly affirmed.

Where does it indicate that Jesus was teaching anything at all about why the Rich Man was in torments?

I didn't say that Jesus said why the Rich Man was in torments; I was only giving my personal conviction on the subject.

I don’t see any charge or charges brought against this man, except by the absurd statement of Abraham that this man was in torments because he had enjoyed the good things in his lifetime. If that’s the case, Abraham certainly deserved to be on the bad side of the gulf too. Wouldn’t he? Isn’t that an absurd statement on his part as to why the Rich Man was there?

Where does it say that Abraham said why he was in torment? I don't see the word "because" in there anywhere. You just assume it. Abraham merely states the fact that the Rich Man had enjoyed the good things in his lifetime. It is your inference that Abraham was saying why the Rich Man was in torment, but it's not something that Abraham actually said. If you are allowed to make inferences or speculate about what is not stated, so am I.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

“Later Jewish tradition locates ‘Paradise’ as an abode of the righteous dead in Hades, however the apocryphal books do not!” (Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 4). Notice that it is according to later Jewish tradition that Paradise is said to be located in the Hadean realm. This is not the teaching of inspired Scripture. Not even the Apocrypha locates Paradise in Hades.

Nowhere in the Bible is Paradise ever associated with some so-called “intermediate state or realm” for the dead. This doctrine originated with men a couple of centuries after the Apostles, and is not taught in Scripture.

With all due respect, your assertion that Paradise as representing an intermediate state or realm of the dead did not originate until centuries after the Apostles tells me that you do not know what you are talking about. When was F19 T. Bab. Kiddushin, fol. 72. 2. Juchasin, fol. 75. 2. written, anyway?

Your own authority, Bullinger, with whom you are in agreement about the state of the dead, contradicts you and acknowledges that this belief was current among the Jews of Jesus' day:

In the Talmud we have those very traditions gathered up which the Lord refers to in His condemnation. Many are there preserved which were current in our Lord's day. We can thus find out exactly what these popular traditions were. “Paradise,” “The carrying away by angels,” “Abraham's bosom,” etc., were the popular expressions constantly used. Christ was not the first who used these phrases, but He used the language of the Pharisees, turning it against them. Take a few examples from the Talmud:

(1) In Kiddushin (Treatise on Betrothal), fol. 72, there is quoted from Juchasin, fol. 75, 2, a long story about what Levi said of Rabbi Judah: “This day he sits in Abraham's bosom,” i.e. the day he died.

There is a difference here between the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmuds – the former says Rabbi Judah was “carried by angels”; the latter says that he was “placed in Abraham's bosom.”

Here we have again the Pharisees' tradition as used against them by our Lord.

(2) There was a story of a woman who had seen six of her sons slain (we have it also in II Macc. vii). She heard the command given to kill the youngest (two-and-a-half years old), and running into the embraces of her little son, kissed him and said, “Go thou, my son, to Abraham my father, and tell him 'Thus saith thy mother. Do not thou boast, saying, I built an altar, and offered my son Isaac. For thy mother hath built seven altars, and offered seven sons in one day,” etc. (Midrash Echah, fol. 68.1).

(3) Another example may be given out of a host of others (Midrash on Ruth, fol. 44, 2; and Midrash on Coheleth (Ecclesiastes) fol. 86, 4). “There are wicked men, that are coupled together in this world. But one of them repents before death, the other doth not, so one is found standing in the assembly of the just, the other in the assembly of the wicked. The one seeth the other and saith, 'Woe! And Alas! There is accepting of persons in this thing. He and I robbed together, committed murder together; and now he stands in the congregation of the just, and I, in the congregation of the wicked.' They answered him: 'O thou foolish among mortals that are in the world! Thou weft abominable and cast forth for three days after thy death, and they did not lay thee in the grave; the worm was under thee, and the worm covered thee; which, when this companion of thine came to understand, he became a penitent. It was in thy power also to have repented, but thou dist not'. He saith to them, 'Let me go now, and become a penitent'. But they say, 'O thou foolishest of men, dost thou not know, that this world in which thou are, is like a Sabbath, and the world out of which thou comest is like the evening of the Sabbath? If thou does not provide something on the evening of the Sabbath, what wilt thou eat on the Sabbath day? Dost thou not know that the world out of which thou camest is like the land; and the world, in which thou now art, is like the sea? If a man make no provision on land for what he should eat at sea, what will he have to eat?' He gnashed his teeth, and gnawed his own flesh.”

(4) We have examples also of the dead discoursing with one another; and also with those who are still alive (Beracoth, fol. 18, 2 – Treatise on Blessings). “R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, How doth it appear that the dead have any discourse among themselves? It appears from what is said (Deut. xxxiv. 4), And the Lord said unto him, This is the land, concerning which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying.” What is the meaning of the word saying? The Holy Blessed God saith unto Moses, 'Go thou and say to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the oath which I sware unto you, I have performed unto your children'.” Note that 'Go thou and say to Abraham,' etc.

Then follows a story of a certain pious man that went and lodged in a burying place, and heard two souls discoursing among themselves. “The one said unto the other, 'Come, my companion, and let us wander about the world, and listen behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the world'. To which the other replied, 'O my companion, I cannot; for I am buried in a can mat; but do thou go and whatsoever thou hearest, do thou come and tell me',” etc. The story goes on to tell of the wandering of the soul and what he heard, etc.

(5) There was a good man and a wicked man that died; as for the good man, “he had no funeral rites solemnized”; but the wicked man had. Afterward, there was one who saw in his dream, the good man walking in gardens, and hard by pleasant springs; but the wicked man “with his tongue trickling drop by drop, at the bank of a river, endeavouring to touch the water, but he could not.” (Chagigah, fol. 77. Treatise on Exodus 23:17).

(6) As to “the great gulf”, we read (Midrash [or Commentary] on Coheleth [Ecclesiastes], 103. 2), “God hath set the one against the other (Ecc. vii. 14) that is Gehenna and Paradise. How far are they distant? A hand-breadth”. Jochanan saith, “A wall is between”, but the Rabbis say “They are so even with one another, that they may see out of one into the other”.
a href="http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/">The Rich Man and Lazarus:
An Intermediate State?
Luke 16:19-31
E.W. BULLINGER, D.D.

So which is it, contemporary or "centuries later"?

Corinthians 12:4 where Paul says he was “caught up into Paradise;” probably equivalent to the “third heaven” of vs. 2, which many biblical scholars suggest signifies being in the very presence of God in heaven (although this event may have been more vision than literal journey, as Paul himself acknowledges).

Paul acknowledges no such thing. The problem you have, and cannot answer is this; if it were actually impossible for a man to live in any sense apart from his body, how could Paul, as a honest man, much less an Apostle say that he could not tell whether he was in the body or out of the body?

“And he said to him: ‘Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise’” (New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).

“And said to him the Jesus, Indeed I say to thee today, with me thou shalt be in the Paradise” (marginal reading in The Emphatic Diaglott, by B. F. Wilson in the 1800's).

Further, with all due respect to you as a person, the fact that you are quoting the New World "Translation" of the Holy Scriptures as having any credibilty as a "translation" is pathetically ignorant. Fred Franz, et al knew about as much Greek and Hebrew as my cat.

The issue does not turn on punctuation for us as it does for you. "Such support a good cause cannot need; and, in my opinion, even a bad cause must be discredited by it." The punctuation of the verse is of little consequence to orthodox Christians. Our theology is not impacted negatively if the comma occurs after "today" instead of before.

A discussion of some of the assertions that you have repeated can be found here: The Apologists Bible Commentary

Cordially,

[Overwatcher]

Again, I believe in angels and spirits. I really do. And I believe Paul did too. Absolutely. Maybe it’s just semantics, but a disembodied spirit makes no sense to me.

In attempting to explain the “Rich Man’s” predicament, Abraham stated that in his lifetime he had enjoyed the good stuff, which is why he was now on the “bad side” of the great gulf. He further explained that Lazarus was such a poor guy, and that is the reason why he was now on the “good side.” The Pharisees did teach that the poor were poor because of their not being in God’s favor. But, in the hereafter the poor would enjoy the good things, because conditions would be reversed. That seems pretty plain to me as far as an explanation goes. But, the word “because” is not in there, just the explanation as to why. If this is true, it seems logical to ask why Abraham wasn’t therefore likewise on the “bad side” of the gulf.

I again affirm my belief in 1 Cor 2:11. And I again respectfully ask you what Paul was telling us in 1 Cor 15:18.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.