Replies

So why wasn't Solomon condemned to Hell? He was richer than snot.

Actually, there is great debate as to whether Solomon was not condemned to hell. At the end of his reign, Solomon was worshiping and building temples to false gods and even permitting and encouraging the horrendous worship of some of the most vilest gods. One of these gods included Molech where people sacrificed their children to a slow flaming, torturous death, and was specifically forbidden by Moses. Because of Solomon's idolatry God rent the kingdom from him. Unlike most of the other kings in the Old Testament, the scriptures are silent when it comes to knowing whether Solomon "did good in the sight of the Lord" or "did evil in the sight of the Lord". Solomon might have been worldly wealthy and wise, but he was not spiritually wise.

This author is clearly wrong to try to minimize-or eliminate-the existence of hell. Scripture is very clear what will happen to the wicked. There is nothing in the Lazarus parable to suggest the rich man ever reconciled to God. If the rich man is suppose to represent the Jews, and this author suggests that the Jews will be reconciled, then this makes his analogy fall apart. I'd stick to the vast amounts of other consistent interpretation that this writer seems to reject.

The point is, there is no blanket condemnation of riches, wealth or prosperity in the Bible. I happen to think that this "parable" is real, because in every other parable, Jesus uses generics: "There was a farmer who . . . ." "A woman had a coin . . . ." But here He used names. Further, I don't know of evidence that said that before Jesus led captivity captive one could NOT see from Paradise to Hades. That's not the same as being in heaven with the Lord---which, of course, is only a temporary "apartment" until we are permanently with the Lord Jesus . . . on the restored earth.

As for Sol, I have a feeling I'll be seeing him in heaven. But you can choose to hang out with whom you wish.