“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine
linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus,
covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the
rich man's table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to
Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes
and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me,
and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue,
for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you
in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad
things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has
been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be
able, and none may cross from there to us.’ And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my
father's house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them,
lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the
Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if
someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the
Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the
dead.’”
Most Christians
assume that, in these verses, Christ was narrating a true story based on actual
historical events. According to this commonly-held view, this passage reveals
what actually happened to two people after they died. In contrast with this understanding,
I believe that both the context and the content of the story indicate that Jesus
intended this story to be understood as a parable.
That this
story is, in fact, a parable has been noted by a significant number of
mainstream Christian scholars both past and present. For example, Robert W.
Yarbrough (an advocate of the traditional doctrine of hell) concedes in his
essay “Jesus on Hell” that it is “widely accepted that this story is parabolic and not
intended to furnish a detailed geography of hell” (Hell Under Fire, pg. 74). Yarbrough goes on to refer to the
story as a “parable” in the same paragraph. I would actually go even further
than Yarbrough (who, in his essay, clearly wants the parable of the rich man
and Lazarus to provide at least some
support for the Christian doctrine of hell). Not only is the story of the rich
man and Lazarus not “intended to
furnish a detailed geography of hell,” but – as I’ll be arguing in this article
– the fact that the story is a parable means that it provides no support
whatsoever for the existence of the “hell” in which most Christians believe.
What is a parable? The word “parable” is a transliteration of the
Greek term para bole’ (the literal elements being
“BESIDE-CAST”), and means, “a statement parallel to (or “cast beside”) its real
spiritual significance; a figure of likeness in action.” It’s essentially a
statement or story that, while based on familiar things, is meant
to convey a deeper, spiritual truth. Insofar as a statement or story is a
parable, it is neither literal nor historical in nature. As soon as one
attempts to interpret a parable literally, one misses the point of the parable,
and misunderstands its intended purpose and meaning.
What is the context of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus?
This parable is closely connected to the preceding parables Jesus told (the
first of which begins in Luke 15:4). In Luke 15:1-3 we’re provided with the
reason Christ told these parables: “Now the tax collectors and sinners were
all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled,
saying, ‘This man receives sinners and eats with them!’ So he told them this parable, saying…” Jesus then proceeded
to give them a series of parables, each of which should be understood as
pertaining to the original situation described in Luke 15:1-2.
Notice the transitional word that Jesus used before the parable of
the lost coin, and which connects it to the previous parable of the lost sheep
(v. 8). Notice also the first verse of chapter 16 (“And he said also unto his
disciples...”). The word “also” refers back to all that went before in this series
of parables. Notice also the introduction of the third and fourth parables (cf.
Luke 12:16):
“A certain man...” (15:11)
“A certain man, who was rich...” (16:1)
Just a few verses later – after an interruption by the Pharisees
and a statement regarding the Mosaic Law and divorce (which, according to A.E.
Knoch, may suggest that the nation of Israel was soon going to be “divorced”
from God) – Jesus concluded the series of parables with the story of the rich
man and Lazarus (which served as the final rebuke of the self-righteous,
money-loving Pharisees). Notice the strikingly similar way that Christ began
this final parable in the series:
“Now a certain man was rich…” (16:19)
Any objection that this story is not specifically called a parable
is invalid, since only eleven of the twenty-six parables recorded in Luke’s Gospel
Account are actually named parables by Luke. But doesn’t Christ’s use of a
person’s name (“Lazarus”) indicate that the story actually happened? No. There
is no rule that says a parable can or can’t contain the mention of a named
person. The use of a name is simply not a criterion by which we can determine
whether or not a story is a parable (the parable found in Ezekiel 23 is another
example in which the characters of a parable are given names). Seeing that “Lazarus”
is the only character who is named, it is likely that this detail is meant to convey
something that is important to the central message of the parable. I believe
the way in which Christ concluded the parable may provide us with a clue
as to why the poor man was given the name “Lazarus.” Here, again, are verses
27-31:
And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's
house— for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them,
lest they also come into this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the
Prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if
someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If
they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be
convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”
Notice that the rich man did not
believe that hearing “Moses and the Prophets” would result in the repentance of
his brothers. If the rich man and his five brothers represent those of whom
this parable was intended by Christ to be a rebuke (i.e., the Pharisees, who –
in v. 14 – we’re told were “inherently fond of money”), then their failure to
repent after hearing Moses and the Prophets is in accord with the following words
of Christ that we find recorded in John 5:46-47 (which were spoken to a company
of unbelieving Jews earlier in his ministry): “If you believed Moses, you would
believe Me, for he writes concerning Me. Now if you are not believing his
writings, how shall you be believing My declarations?”
Although the rich man in Jesus’ parable
realizes that his brothers wouldn’t hear “Moses and the Prophets,” he thinks
they would repent if someone went to
them “from the dead.” However, Abraham’s response to the rich man’s suggestion
reveals otherwise: ‘If they
do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if
someone should rise from the dead.’
And later in Jesus’ ministry – when a man named “Lazarus” is actually raised from the dead – Abraham’s concluding statement in the parable is proven correct. Rather than being led to repentance as a result of Lazarus’
resurrection, the majority of unbelieving Jews (which included the Pharisees to
whom Christ told the parables recorded in Luke 15-16) remained in unbelief
concerning the truth of Jesus’ Messianic identity, and were strengthened in
their resolve to have Jesus put to death (John 11:45-53).
Sheol/Hades
In verse 23 we’re
told that the rich man was in “Hades” after he died. The term “Hades” is a transliteration of the Greek word hádēs. Although this term is translated “hell” in a few English versions (such as the KJV and NET), it should be noted that the term hádēs is a completely different word than that which is more commonly translated “hell” in most English Bibles (i.e., géenna,
which is a transliteration of the Hebrew term, Gêhinnōm, or “Hinnom Valley”). In my study on the meaning of this latter term (click here for part one), I argued that it refers to a
valley that forms the western and southern border of the old city of
Jerusalem. I further argued that, in
fulfillment of Isaiah 66:24, this literal valley will be used for the disposal (and incineration) of the
corpses of lawless rebels after Christ returns to earth and restores the
kingdom to Israel. Thus, although “Gehenna” (or Hinnom Valley) will be a place of judgment and literal fire during the age to come, it will not be a place of torment. And not only this, but – as I’ll be arguing
below – the real nature of “Hades” (i.e., its nature outside of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) is such that it’s actually impossible for anyone to be tormented there.
Significantly, in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the Greek Scriptures, the term “Hades” was used as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “Sheol” (she'ohl'). For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, we find the term Sheol used in Psalm 16:10. However, in the LXX, the Greek term Hades was used to translate Sheol. And in Acts 2:27 (where Psalm 16:10 is quoted by Peter), we also find Hades being used as the Greek equivalent for Sheol. But if Hades was used in the New Testament as the Greek equivalent for Sheol, then what is Sheol?
Significantly, in both the Septuagint (LXX) and the Greek Scriptures, the term “Hades” was used as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word “Sheol” (she'ohl'). For example, in the Hebrew Scriptures, we find the term Sheol used in Psalm 16:10. However, in the LXX, the Greek term Hades was used to translate Sheol. And in Acts 2:27 (where Psalm 16:10 is quoted by Peter), we also find Hades being used as the Greek equivalent for Sheol. But if Hades was used in the New Testament as the Greek equivalent for Sheol, then what is Sheol?
While several derivations for the word
Sheol have been offered by Biblical scholars, the term may have been
derived from the Hebrew verb sha'al' (which means “to ask or
request”). If that’s the case, the name “Sheol” suggests something which (in a
figurative sense) continually asks or craves for more (see Prov. 27:20;
30:15-16; Hab. 2:5; cf. Isaiah 5:14). Based on how the word is consistently
used in the Hebrew Scriptures, it can be reasonably inferred that Sheol simply
denotes “the grave” in a general sense. That is, Sheol refers to wherever the
dead reside and return to the dust of the earth (Job 17:16), whether this
takes place in a keber (a tomb or place of burial; Gen 23:7-9;
Jer. 8:1; 26:23) or elsewhere (Gen. 37:35; Isa 14:9, 11, 15, 19).
That Sheol refers to wherever the dead reside (i.e., the domain or state
of the dead) becomes especially evident when we consider the fact that the
contents of Sheol are such as can only belong to a location where corpses
reside. We read of gray hairs as being in Sheol (Gen 42:38; 44:29, 31), gray
heads (1 Kings 2:6, 9), bones (Psalm 141:7; Ezekiel 32:27), sheep (Psalm 49:15),
material possessions (Numbers 16:32-33), and swords and other weapons of war
(Ezekiel 32:27). Worms and maggots are also spoken of as if present in Sheol
(Job 17:13-14; 24:19-20; Isaiah 14:11; cf. Job 21:23-26). And it is noteworthy
that Korah and his company were said to go down to Sheol “alive.” This would
make little sense if Sheol denoted a supernatural realm of “disembodied
spirits.” However, when Sheol is understood to denote the domain of the dead,
what we’re told in Numbers 16:32-33 makes perfect sense. Korah and his company
simply went down alive to the place where their corpses ended up residing (and
where they ultimately returned to dust). Although their resting place was much
deeper in the earth than most other places of burial, they were in Sheol,
nonetheless.
Because burial was the typical way in which the Hebrews disposed of their dead, Sheol is appropriately described as being beneath the surface of the earth (Ps. 63:9; 86:13; Prov. 15:24; Isa. 7:11; 57:9; Ezek. 26:20; 31:14; 32:18; Prov. 15:24). The dead descend or are made to go down into Sheol, while the revived are represented as ascending or being brought and lifted up from it (1 Sam. 2:6; Job 7:9; Ps. 30:4; Isa. 14:11, 15). And like the caves and other burial places used by the ancient Hebrews, Sheol is described as a place with gates (Job 17:16, 38:17; Isa. 38.10; Ps. 9:14) and as having a “mouth” or place of entrance: “As when one plows and breaks up the earth, so shall our bones be scattered at the mouth of Sheol” (Ps. 141:7) – i.e., at the entrance to the grave. Sheol is also described as marking the point of greatest possible distance that persons could be from the heavens (Job 11:8; Amos 9:2; Ps. 139:8) – hence the expressions “depths of Sheol” (Deut. 32:22; Ps. 86:13; Prov. 9:18) and “depths of the pit” (Ps. 88:6; Lam. 3:55; Ezek. 26:20, 32:24), which denotes the lowest possible places of burial.
Sheol (i.e., the grave in a general sense) is further described as a place of silence (Ps. 3:17, 6:6, 30:10, 88:13, 94:17, 115:17). It is called the “land of forgetfulness” (Ps. 88:12), where all who reside there are without any memory of the past, as well as forgotten by the living (Ps. 31:12). In Job 40:12-13 we read that God declared, “Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below.” Here “the world below” (literally, “the hidden places”) undoubtedly refers to Sheol, and (as elsewhere) is associated with “dust.” Job referred to this silent resting place of the dead as “the land of darkness and the shadow of death: a land of darkness as darkness itself; and of the shadow of death, without any order; and where the light is as darkness” (Job 10:20-22; see also Ps. 88:12; Job 3:5, 16; 12:21-22; 17:13; 1 Sam. 2:9; Ps. 44:19, 107:10, 14, where similar statements are made). This is, of course, fitting imagery if Sheol refers to those darkened places concealed from mortal eyes where corpses return to dust.
Because burial was the typical way in which the Hebrews disposed of their dead, Sheol is appropriately described as being beneath the surface of the earth (Ps. 63:9; 86:13; Prov. 15:24; Isa. 7:11; 57:9; Ezek. 26:20; 31:14; 32:18; Prov. 15:24). The dead descend or are made to go down into Sheol, while the revived are represented as ascending or being brought and lifted up from it (1 Sam. 2:6; Job 7:9; Ps. 30:4; Isa. 14:11, 15). And like the caves and other burial places used by the ancient Hebrews, Sheol is described as a place with gates (Job 17:16, 38:17; Isa. 38.10; Ps. 9:14) and as having a “mouth” or place of entrance: “As when one plows and breaks up the earth, so shall our bones be scattered at the mouth of Sheol” (Ps. 141:7) – i.e., at the entrance to the grave. Sheol is also described as marking the point of greatest possible distance that persons could be from the heavens (Job 11:8; Amos 9:2; Ps. 139:8) – hence the expressions “depths of Sheol” (Deut. 32:22; Ps. 86:13; Prov. 9:18) and “depths of the pit” (Ps. 88:6; Lam. 3:55; Ezek. 26:20, 32:24), which denotes the lowest possible places of burial.
Sheol (i.e., the grave in a general sense) is further described as a place of silence (Ps. 3:17, 6:6, 30:10, 88:13, 94:17, 115:17). It is called the “land of forgetfulness” (Ps. 88:12), where all who reside there are without any memory of the past, as well as forgotten by the living (Ps. 31:12). In Job 40:12-13 we read that God declared, “Look on everyone who is proud and bring him low and tread down the wicked where they stand. Hide them all in the dust together; bind their faces in the world below.” Here “the world below” (literally, “the hidden places”) undoubtedly refers to Sheol, and (as elsewhere) is associated with “dust.” Job referred to this silent resting place of the dead as “the land of darkness and the shadow of death: a land of darkness as darkness itself; and of the shadow of death, without any order; and where the light is as darkness” (Job 10:20-22; see also Ps. 88:12; Job 3:5, 16; 12:21-22; 17:13; 1 Sam. 2:9; Ps. 44:19, 107:10, 14, where similar statements are made). This is, of course, fitting imagery if Sheol refers to those darkened places concealed from mortal eyes where corpses return to dust.
In accord with all of the verses referenced and
quoted above, Sheol is also described as a state of corruption and destruction
(see Job 26:6, 28:22; Ps. 88:11, 16:10; Job 4:18-20; Ps. 49:9-20; Prov. 15:11,
27:20; Acts 13:26) where one’s form is said to be “consumed” (Ps
49:14). David prophesied that God would not abandon the
Messiah’s soul (i.e., the Messiah himself) in Sheol, or let him see
corruption (Psalm 16:10; cf. Acts 2:27). Since David was employing Hebrew
parallelism here (i.e., where the writer expresses the same thought in slightly
different words), it follows that for God to abandon Christ in Sheol would mean
to let him “see corruption” (which is a reference to Christ’s body, which would
have begun to decompose had God not preserved it and then roused his Son from
among the dead on the third day).
In Ecclesiastes 12:5, Solomon tells us that, at death,
“man goes to his age-abiding home.” This is undoubtedly another reference to Sheol. Previously
he had declared, “All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all
return to dust again” (Eccles 3:20). And since, as a matter
of course, death naturally comes to all, Sheol is appropriately referred to as “the appointed house for all the living” (Job 30:23; 17:13; Eccl. 11:5). It is here
that the dead meet (Ezek. 32; Job 30:23) and rest from their earthly toil in
silence without distinction of rank or condition – the rich and the poor, the
pious and the wicked, the old and the young, the master and the slave:
Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me? Or why the breasts, that I should nurse? For then I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept; then I would have been at rest, with kings and counsellors of the earth who rebuilt ruins for themselves, or with princes who had gold, who filled their houses with silver. Or why was I not as a hidden stillborn child, as infants who never see the light? There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest. There the prisoners are at ease together; they hear not the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master. Job 3:11-19 (cf. Isa. 57:2).
Notice how Job understood death to be a state that is like sleep (“For then I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept…”). This understanding of the nature of death is expressed again in Job 14:10-12:
Why did I not die at birth, come out from the womb and expire? Why did the knees receive me? Or why the breasts, that I should nurse? For then I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept; then I would have been at rest, with kings and counsellors of the earth who rebuilt ruins for themselves, or with princes who had gold, who filled their houses with silver. Or why was I not as a hidden stillborn child, as infants who never see the light? There the wicked cease from troubling, and there the weary are at rest. There the prisoners are at ease together; they hear not the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the great are there, and the slave is free from his master. Job 3:11-19 (cf. Isa. 57:2).
Notice how Job understood death to be a state that is like sleep (“For then I would have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept…”). This understanding of the nature of death is expressed again in Job 14:10-12:
“But a man dies and is laid low; man breathes his
last, and where is he? As waters fail from a lake and a river wastes away
and dries up, so a man lies down and rises not again; till the
heavens are no more he will not awake or be roused out of his sleep.”
Notice that it is “man” who, in death, is figuratively spoken of as if he were asleep and in need of being “roused.” Similarly, in Daniel 12:2 we read, “From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life and these to reproach for eonian repulsion” (CVOT). Here, the “sleep” metaphor obviously applies to that which returns to “the soil of the ground” – i.e., the human body. And since it is human persons who are said to “sleep” after they die, then it can be reasonably inferred that our body is essential to our existence and personal identity. In other words, the lifeless body that returns to the “the soil of the ground” after a human being dies is, in a very real sense, the remains of the individual who died. And this means that those who have died are no more conscious than their lifeless, physical remains:
“The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing” (Eccl 9:5).
Notice that it is “man” who, in death, is figuratively spoken of as if he were asleep and in need of being “roused.” Similarly, in Daniel 12:2 we read, “From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life and these to reproach for eonian repulsion” (CVOT). Here, the “sleep” metaphor obviously applies to that which returns to “the soil of the ground” – i.e., the human body. And since it is human persons who are said to “sleep” after they die, then it can be reasonably inferred that our body is essential to our existence and personal identity. In other words, the lifeless body that returns to the “the soil of the ground” after a human being dies is, in a very real sense, the remains of the individual who died. And this means that those who have died are no more conscious than their lifeless, physical remains:
“The living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing” (Eccl 9:5).
“His spirit
departs, he returns to the earth; in that very day his thoughts perish” (Psalm 146:4).
“The
dead do not praise Yahweh, nor do any that go down into silence” (Psalm 115:17).
In accord with the above verses (where it’s clear
that those who have died are not engaged in any kind of conscious and
volitional activity), we know from other verses that Sheol is, in fact, a place
or state of utter oblivion:
“Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going” (Eccl 9:10).
“For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who can give you praise?” (Psalm 6:5)
“For Sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness” (Isaiah 38:18).
Moreover, keeping in mind that Hades is the Greek equivalent of Sheol in both the Septuagint and the New Testament, the same inspired truth would be communicated if we replaced the term “Sheol” with “Hades” in these verses:
“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Hades, to which you are going.”
“For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Hades who can give you praise?”
“Whatever your hand finds to do, do with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going” (Eccl 9:10).
“For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Sheol who can give you praise?” (Psalm 6:5)
“For Sheol cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness” (Isaiah 38:18).
Moreover, keeping in mind that Hades is the Greek equivalent of Sheol in both the Septuagint and the New Testament, the same inspired truth would be communicated if we replaced the term “Sheol” with “Hades” in these verses:
“Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Hades, to which you are going.”
“For in death there is no remembrance of you; in Hades who can give you praise?”
“For Hades cannot thank you, death cannot praise you; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness”
The
conscious dead?
In
light of the above considerations, I think the most reasonable and
scripturally-informed position to take is that Sheol – and thus Hades – simply
refers to the domain of the dead (with “the dead” being constituted by the physical remains of those who have
died). There are, however, a few passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that are thought
by some to be inconsistent with this conclusion. Thus, before we return to Luke 16:19-31, I think it would be helpful to first consider
these passages.
The
first passage I’ll be considering is that in which we find the account of Saul
and the medium of En-dor (i.e., 1 Samuel 28). When considering this interesting
episode in the life of Saul, it should be kept in mind that Saul’s grandson,
Solomon, would have undoubtedly been very familiar with this story about his
grandfather, Saul. And yet, Solomon expressed a view concerning the state of
the dead that is very much inconsistent with the popular Christian
interpretation of 1 Samuel 28. According to the understanding of death that we
find affirmed by Solomon in Ecclesiastes, Samuel would not have been able to do
or know anything while dead. Apparently, Solomon did not understand this
account involving his grandfather Saul to reveal anything about the dead that contradicted
his own inspired declarations concerning the nature of death and the state of
both man and beast after death (Eccl 3:19-20; 9:5, 10). It follows, then, that
Solomon probably interpreted this passage quite differently than some
Christians do.
If
Samuel was actually present when he spoke to Saul (and this seems to have been
the view of the one who narrated the incident), then it follows that he wasn’t
in Sheol at the time. And if he wasn’t in Sheol, then that which he was able to
do while not in Sheol is no indication
of what those in Sheol can or can’t do. And there is nothing said in Scripture
about the dead being able to leave Sheol while remaining dead. To be in Sheol
is simply to be in the state of death, and to be delivered from Sheol is to be
delivered from death (Ps. 89:48). In 1 Sam. 2:6 we read the following in
Hannah’s prayer: “Yahweh
kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up.” The Hebrew parallelism in this verse is
clear: those who are killed are “brought down” to Sheol, and those who are
restored to life are “raised up” from Sheol. If one believes that Samuel had
been “raised up” from Sheol to appear before the medium, then – according to
what we read in 1 Sam. 2:6 – Samuel must have been restored by God to a living
existence. That is, if Samuel was actually present before the medium (as I’m
inclined to believe) – and thus not in Sheol – then there is nothing in
Scripture which suggests that he was dead during the time. Instead, the
implication would be that he had been (temporarily) restored to life by God.[1]
Thus,
while the text doesn’t explicitly say that Samuel was raised from the dead, it can
be understood as implied by the fact
that the medium describes him as having a physical, embodied form (i.e., as an
“old man” wrapped in a “robe”). But did the disembodied, immaterial being that
most Christians believe Samuel became after he died look like an old man? Do
“ghosts” look naked without any clothes on? The more closely we consider the
popular Christian position, the more absurd it gets. Assuming that the entity
referred to as “Samuel” was actually Samuel (and not a demonic spirit who was
impersonating Samuel, as some believe), the most reasonable interpretation of this
passage is that God miraculously restored the dead prophet to a living
existence (a feat that would've been no more difficult for God than the
original creation of Adam). After Samuel spoke to Saul, it can be inferred that
he was simply returned to the lifeless, unconscious state that he he was in
prior to being resurrected.
Another
passage thought to support the idea that the dead in Sheol/Hades are conscious
is Isaiah 14:7-10. In these verses we read the following:
The whole earth
is at rest and quiet; they break forth into singing. The cypresses rejoice at
you, the cedars of Lebanon, saying, ‘Since you were laid low, no woodcutter
comes up against us.’ Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come; it
rouses the dead to greet you, all who were leaders of the earth; it raises from
their thrones all who were kings of the nations. All of them will answer and
say to you: ‘You too have become as weak as we! You have become like us!’ Your
pomp is brought down to Sheol, the sound of your harps; maggots are laid as a
bed beneath you, and worms are your covers.
This is
clearly figurative language. Just as the earth and trees are represented as
singing, talking and rejoicing at the downfall of the king of Babylon, so Sheol
itself is personified and described as being “stirred up” to greet its newest
inhabitant, and as rousing its slumbering inhabitants to do the same. The
imaginary scene being described is that of dead corpses – and not “disembodied
spirits” – being awakened from their “sleep” in the grave (hence the reference
to “maggots” being laid as a “bed” beneath the king, and "worms"
being his "covers"). The entire seen is imaginary and poetic, not
literal. Just as trees do not literally speak, neither do dead people.
The death of the king of Babylon is
referred to using “tree imagery” because of the figurative imagery already
employed, in which trees are represented as rejoicing and speaking. According
to the Oxford Annotated Bible,
Assyrian and Babylonian kings used great quantities of cedars for their
palaces. Because cedars (and apparently cypresses as well) were prized for
lumber and often carried off to Babylon, they are represented as rejoicing at
the death of the king since no one had come to cut them down. But the main
point to be emphasized is that, in this passage, figurative imagery is being
employed in which unconscious, inanimate things are represented as if they were
animate and conscious. And while the tree imagery is dropped after v. 8, the
use of figurative imagery continues into v. 9: “Sheol beneath is stirred up to meet you when you
come; it rouses the dead to greet you...” Is Sheol literally a conscious person who can be “stirred
up” to meet people, and rouse others to do the same? Of course not. This isn't
literally true. Just like the trees of v. 8, Sheol is represented as if it were
a conscious person (a literary device known today as ”personification”). And
there is no good reason to understand the rest of the passage any differently.
Just as trees and Sheol are represented as animate, conscious persons, so are
the dead.
Another
similar passage where the dead in Sheol are represented as speaking is Ezekiel
32:17-32. In v. 21, certain “mighty chiefs” are figuratively represented as
saying to slain Egyptians from “out of the midst of Sheol,” “They have come down, they lie still, the
uncircumcised, slain by the sword.” Of course the slain Egyptians “lie still” in Sheol; like all who we’re
told “lie among the uncircumcised” in Sheol (v. 28), the Egyptians in view had
become lifeless corpses. We’re also told of certain mighty leaders “who went down to Sheol with their weapons
of war, whose swords were laid under their heads…” (v. 27). As in Isaiah 14, figurative language is
being employed in v. 21; the dead in Sheol cannot literally speak to each
other. The dead know nothing, and there is no work or thought or knowledge or
wisdom in Sheol.
It’s significant that, even in the
non-literal references to Sheol and its deceased inhabitants, no one in Sheol
is represented as being in a state of torment. There is not a single verse in
the entire Hebrew Scriptures in which Sheol/Hades is described as containing
either a place of torment for the wicked or
a place of comfort for the righteous. There’s not a single word in “Moses and
the Prophets” about Sheol/Hades being a place in which “disembodied souls”
reside, or as having two compartments for good and bad persons that are
separated by an un-crossable gulf, or about angels whisking righteous people
off to “Abraham’s bosom” after they die. Instead, Sheol/Hades was used by the
inspired writers to refer to the “domain of the dead” – i.e., wherever the dead
reside and eventually return to dust.
Jewish myths
Being true to the nature of a parable, all of Christ’s parables were based on things with which his first-century Jewish audience would have been very familiar, and contained recognizable elements of first-century Jewish society, culture and beliefs. Though the spiritual message of the parable was hidden to those without eyes to see and ears to hear, it was, on the surface, a story to which his audience could immediately relate. This means that Christ told the story of the rich man and Lazarus with the full understanding that his target audience (i.e., the scribes and Pharisees) would have been well acquainted with the details and imagery of the story. It was, in other words, a story to which they could relate, with specific details they would understand and certain happenings with which they would be familiar. But this point raises the following question: How could the scribes and Pharisees have been familiar with the content of this story?
In Mark 7 we find Christ rebuking the scribes and Pharisees for “teaching for teachings the directions of men,” for leaving “the precept of God” and “holding the tradition of men,” for “repudiating the precept of God, that [they] should be keeping [their] tradition,“ and for “invalidating the word of God by [their] tradition.” And in addition to the specific examples Christ provided in his rebuke, he further added that there were “many such like things” that they were doing! In light of this fact, I submit that the beliefs on which the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was based (and which, as will be demonstrated below, were held by the Pharisees in Jesus’ day) were among the “many such like things” to which Christ was referring.
In his work A Harmony of the Four Gospels, the Scottish Presbyterian minister and writer, James Macknight (1721-1800), had this to say concerning the parable of the rich man and Lazarus:
In Mark 7 we find Christ rebuking the scribes and Pharisees for “teaching for teachings the directions of men,” for leaving “the precept of God” and “holding the tradition of men,” for “repudiating the precept of God, that [they] should be keeping [their] tradition,“ and for “invalidating the word of God by [their] tradition.” And in addition to the specific examples Christ provided in his rebuke, he further added that there were “many such like things” that they were doing! In light of this fact, I submit that the beliefs on which the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was based (and which, as will be demonstrated below, were held by the Pharisees in Jesus’ day) were among the “many such like things” to which Christ was referring.
In his work A Harmony of the Four Gospels, the Scottish Presbyterian minister and writer, James Macknight (1721-1800), had this to say concerning the parable of the rich man and Lazarus:
”It must be acknowledged that our
Lord's descriptions are not drawn from the writings of the Old Testament, but
have a remarkable affinity to the descriptions which the pagan poets have
given. They represent the abodes of the blessed as lying contiguous to the
region of the damned, and separated only by a great impassable gulf in such
sort that the ghosts could talk to one another from the opposite banks. If from
these resemblances it is thought the parable is formed on the pagan mythology,
it will not at all follow that our Lord approved of what the common people
thought or spoke concerning these matters, agreeably to the notions of Greeks.
In parables, provided the doctrines inculcated are strictly true, the terms in
which they are inculcated may be such as are most familiar to the people, and
the images made use of are such as they are best acquainted with.”
Similarly, J.L. Mosheim describes how
these pagan ideas began to spread among the Jews during the period between the
writing of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as follows:
“The ancestors of those Jews who
lived in the time of our Savior had brought from Chaldaea and the neighboring
countries many extravagant and idle fancies which were utterly unknown to the
original founders of the nation. The conquest of Asia by Alexander the Great
was also an event from which we may date a new accession of errors to the Jewish
system, since, in consequence of that revolution, the manners and opinions of
the Greeks began to spread among the Jews. Beside this, in their voyages to
Egypt and Phoenicia, they brought home, not only the wealth of these corrupt
and superstitious nations, but also their pernicious errors and idle fables,
which were imperceptibly blended with their own religious doctrines.” (Church History, Century 1, pt. 1, chap. 2)
In support of
what we read above, we know that the Pharisees in Jesus’ day did, in
fact, believe in a subterranean place of retribution in which it was thought
that the “immortal souls” of the wicked would be eternally tormented.
Concerning the beliefs of the Pharisees, the first-century Jewish historian,
Josephus, wrote the following: “They believe that souls have an
immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or
punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or according to vice in
this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that
the former shall have power to revive and live again” (D. Ant. 18.14-15). And in another place (B. War 2.162-64), Josephus wrote
that the Pharisees “say that all souls are imperishable, but that the souls of good
men only are removed into other bodies, but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.”
It should be noted that the Greek words
translated “everlasting prison” and “eternal punishment” in this quotation from
Josephus are “eirgmon aidion” and “aidios
timoria,” respectively. Although the second expression is translated “eternal
punishment” in the above excerpt, these words
should not be confused with the expression that’s commonly translated “eternal
punishment” in Matthew 25:46 (which is, instead, “kolasin aionios”). Despite
being translated as “eternal punishment” in most English Bibles, the expression
“kolasin aionios” in Matt. 25:46 means something entirely different from “aidios
timoria” (the words in each expression are not even related to each other).
Rather than being translated “eternal punishment,” a more accurate translation
of kolasin aionios in Matt. 25:46 would be “chastening eonian” (CLNT), “eonian
discipline” (Dabhar) or “age-abiding correction” (Rotherham).[2]
The
Pharisees weren’t the only first-century Jews to believe that the “disembodied souls” of the wicked were punished in an “everlasting prison” under the earth. The
Essenes (who were another Jewish sect that existed in Jesus’ day) also believed
that the “disembodied souls” of the wicked were eternally punished in some
dark, subterranean region. Here, again, is Josephus:
“For their
doctrine is this: That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are
made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue
forever; and that they come out of the most subtle air, and are united to their
bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural
enticement; but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they
then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward. And this is
like the opinions of the Greeks, that good souls have their habitations beyond
the ocean, in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain or snow,
or with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by the gentle
breathing of a west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and
tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments.
And indeed the
Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when they allot the islands
of the blessed to their brave men, whom they call heroes and demi-gods; and to
the souls of the wicked, the region of the ungodly, in Hades, where their
fables relate that certain persons, such as Sisyphus, and Tantalus, and Ixion,
and Tityus, are punished; which is built
on this first supposition, that souls are immortal; and thence are those
exhortations to virtue and dehortations from wickedness collected; whereby good
men are bettered in the conduct of their life by the hope they have of reward
after their death; and whereby the vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are
restrained, by the fear and expectation
they are in, that although they should lie concealed in this life, they should
suffer immortal punishment after their death. These are the Divine
doctrines of the Essenes about the soul, which lay an irresistible bait for
such as have once had a taste of their philosophy.” Josephus, War
2.154-158 (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm#link2note-6)
In contrast with this understanding of what happens to people
after they die, we’re told by Josephus that the Sadducees (who we know from
Scripture denied the reality of the resurrection) “take away the
belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in
Hades.” Evidently, then, the “Hades” in which the Pharisees and Essenes believed was not simply the
grave in a general sense, or a lifeless state of oblivion in which the dead must remain until being
restored to a living existence. Rather, in accord with Greek mythology, it was thought to be a subterranean place where
rewards and punishments were meted out to the disembodied, “immortal
souls” of those who went there after they “died.”
We can therefore conclude that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus simply reflected the Pharisee’s own unscriptural beliefs concerning the afterlife (which were derived from extra-biblical sources and traditions that had, at some point, become part of their religious tradition). Jesus was not, therefore, teaching the Pharisees to whom he told this parable anything new. Nor was Jesus endorsing as true what the Pharisees already believed (for we know that the content of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was not based on anything found in the word of God, and – as noted above – Jesus elsewhere rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for departing from the Scriptures, and for replacing Scriptural truths and precepts with their own traditions). Instead, Christ was simply incorporating their own unscriptural beliefs (which they’d derived from the uninspired beliefs of pagans) into a fictional parable directed against them.
By formulating a parable out of their own erroneous beliefs about the “afterlife,” Christ more forcefully rebuked his unbelieving opponents. It is as if Christ had said to the Pharisees, “Since you believe the dead are rewarded and punished in Hades – contrary to what is said in your own inspired Scriptures – then allow me to introduce the testimony of your beloved patriarch, Abraham, to condemn you according to your own false beliefs.” And that is just what Christ did when, after representing the rich man as pleading with Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers to warn them of the “place of torment” in which the Pharisees believed, Christ had Abraham respond to this request with the following words: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” The fact that Christ had Abraham refer to “Moses and the Prophets” in the parable is significant, since – as argued above – there is not a single verse anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures where the wicked are said to go to a place of fiery torment after they die.
We can therefore conclude that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus simply reflected the Pharisee’s own unscriptural beliefs concerning the afterlife (which were derived from extra-biblical sources and traditions that had, at some point, become part of their religious tradition). Jesus was not, therefore, teaching the Pharisees to whom he told this parable anything new. Nor was Jesus endorsing as true what the Pharisees already believed (for we know that the content of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was not based on anything found in the word of God, and – as noted above – Jesus elsewhere rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for departing from the Scriptures, and for replacing Scriptural truths and precepts with their own traditions). Instead, Christ was simply incorporating their own unscriptural beliefs (which they’d derived from the uninspired beliefs of pagans) into a fictional parable directed against them.
By formulating a parable out of their own erroneous beliefs about the “afterlife,” Christ more forcefully rebuked his unbelieving opponents. It is as if Christ had said to the Pharisees, “Since you believe the dead are rewarded and punished in Hades – contrary to what is said in your own inspired Scriptures – then allow me to introduce the testimony of your beloved patriarch, Abraham, to condemn you according to your own false beliefs.” And that is just what Christ did when, after representing the rich man as pleading with Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers to warn them of the “place of torment” in which the Pharisees believed, Christ had Abraham respond to this request with the following words: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.” The fact that Christ had Abraham refer to “Moses and the Prophets” in the parable is significant, since – as argued above – there is not a single verse anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures where the wicked are said to go to a place of fiery torment after they die.
Some may take exception to the idea that Jesus would use a false belief
as a basis for his teaching, since they think it would mean Christ was
sanctioning the false teaching. However, the truth or falsity of the story in a
parable is irrelevant; it is the lesson conveyed through the story that is the
intended point. Furthermore, the nature of satire is to demonstrate
faulty thinking on the part of those being satirized. We can thus
conclude that it was the false beliefs of the Pharisees which were being
criticized by Christ just as much as those who held to those beliefs. Even if the Pharisees to whom Christ told the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus continued to believe that the wicked were punished in
Hades, we have no reason to think Christ would have attempted to correct their
mistaken view; the parable itself pointed them to their own inspired Scriptures
(which contradicted the erroneous beliefs to which they held,
and were sufficient to bring about any needed doctrinal correction for those who heeded them). It’s also unlikely that the disciples would have understood Christ to
have been speaking approvingly of the Pharisaic opinions on which the parable
was based, especially once they realized it was a parable directed against the
very persons who believed and taught such things.
[1]
It may be objected that Saul seemed to have been unable to see
Samuel. However, we know the medium could see him (for we read that she cried
out in surprise when he appeared). Apparently, then, the individual seen by the
medium was not an invisible, “disembodied spirit.” Saul’s inability to see
Samuel can easily be accounted for by the fact that the medium was likely using
a “conjuring pit.” Mediums at that time used large holes in the ground from
which they pretended to summon the ghosts of the dead during their séances. In Vine's Expository Dictionary, we read
the following concerning the “conjuring pit” used by mediums: “In its earliest appearances (Sumerian),
ob refers to a pit out of which a
departed spirit may be summoned. Later Assyrian texts use this word to denote
simply a pit in the ground. Akkadian texts describe a deity that is the
personification of the pit, to whom a particular exorcism ritual was addressed.
Biblical Hebrew attests this word 16 times.” Similarly, the Journal
of Biblical Literature has this to say on the word ob: “Initially,
the term may have hinted of a ‘hole’ from which dead spirits ascended from the
spirit-world to earth’s environment to communicate with the living, with the
word eventually being used for the spirits themselves” (Hoffner, 385-401). If Samuel had indeed been
temporarily restored by God to a living, embodied existence within the medium’s
“conjuring pit,” then Saul would not have been able to see him initially unless
he was looking down into it (as the medium would have been doing).
[2] As I’ve argued in greater depth
elsewhere (see, for example, the following study: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2015/01/eternal-or-eonian-part-one_17.html), the term “aionios” is the adjectival
form of the noun aion. Since the noun from which the adjective is derived means
“age” or “eon” (i.e., the longest segment of time known in the Scriptures), the
adjective aionios should be understood to mean, “lasting for, or pertaining to,
an eon or eons.” It does not pertain to “eternity” but rather to long intervals
of time that have both a beginning and an end (with the last two eons being the
future eons during which Christ and the saints will be reigning). See also my
article on the meaning of the noun aión in the Greek Scriptures: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-meaning-of-aion-in-new-testament.html. Concerning the meaning of the
“chastening eonian” that is said to be the destiny of the unrighteous “goats”
referred to in Matt. 25:46, see my seven-part study on this subject: http://thathappyexpectation.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-judgment-of-sheep-and-goats-study_14.html
No comments:
Post a Comment