D
dreamfleur
Guest
Here is an SDA site that “explains” the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man.
sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q43.htm
I am being challenged based on certain “beliefs” stated here, such as:
Contenders for literalism suppose Dives and Lazarus to be in a disembodied state, that is, destitute of bodies. And yet the rich man is explicitly referred to as having “eyes” that see, and a “tongue” that speaks, as well as seeking cooling relief from the “finger” of Lazarus—real bodily parts. They are thus portrayed as going to their reward bodily, despite the fact that Dives’s body was duly buried and in the grave. Those who contend that, by this parable, Christ was supporting what we believe to be a pagan concept of death, must also hold that He condoned the unethical schemes of the unjust steward. But this no one would attempt to do.
and
The absurdity of the popular contention becomes the more apparent the further the involvements are pursued. To cite this allegory as a literal instead of a figurative account, would, as has already been observed, place heaven and hell geographically within speaking and seeing distance of each other, which is incongruous. Saints and sinners eternally holding converse! The resultant question is inescapable: Will all who die in Christ see and converse, across the dividing gulf, through all eternity, with their own loved ones who have died out of Christ?
If the recital is conceded to be but a parable, but used to sustain the concept of the conscious torment of the wicked, then we are confronted with the universally
accepted principle that a doctrine cannot safely be built upon a parable or an allegory alone, especially when it contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture. To do so involves the one who attempts it in absurdity and contradiction. We repeat that this parabolic discourse of the Master was not designed to teach conditions the other side of death, or in the unseen world in the intermediate state, but to convey great moral lessons. Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah) rightly says that doctrine cannot be derived from this parable concerning the other world, or the character or duration of future punishments, or the moral improvement of those in Gehenna.* We feel that to use it as proof that men receive their rewards at death is squarely to contradict Christ Himself, who states explicitly that the righteous and the wicked receive their reward, “when the Son of man shall come in his glory” (see Matt. 25:31-41).
If dead men actually hold converse with one another, then the parable contradicts the plainest declarations of Scripture—“His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish” (Ps. 146:4); “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence” (Ps. 115:17).
Abraham himself had died and his sons buried him (Gen. 25:8, 9). Nor is there any account of his resurrection. In the Biblical account (Hebrews 11) he, like the other patriarchs, is awaiting that “better” resurrection at the second coming of Christ.
*And Dr. William Smith (Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2,r. 1038) insists: “It is impossible to ground the proof of an important theological doctrine on a passage which confessedly abounds in Jewish metaphor.”
So the contention that the reward is received at death (a) nullifies the judgment, anticipating its predicted time; (b) completely contradicts what we believe to be the clear testimony of Scripture that the dead are asleep; (c) represents disembodied spirits as possessing bodily members; and (d) puts the spirits in full view of one another.
sdanet.org/atissue/books/qod/q43.htm
I am being challenged based on certain “beliefs” stated here, such as:
Contenders for literalism suppose Dives and Lazarus to be in a disembodied state, that is, destitute of bodies. And yet the rich man is explicitly referred to as having “eyes” that see, and a “tongue” that speaks, as well as seeking cooling relief from the “finger” of Lazarus—real bodily parts. They are thus portrayed as going to their reward bodily, despite the fact that Dives’s body was duly buried and in the grave. Those who contend that, by this parable, Christ was supporting what we believe to be a pagan concept of death, must also hold that He condoned the unethical schemes of the unjust steward. But this no one would attempt to do.
and
The absurdity of the popular contention becomes the more apparent the further the involvements are pursued. To cite this allegory as a literal instead of a figurative account, would, as has already been observed, place heaven and hell geographically within speaking and seeing distance of each other, which is incongruous. Saints and sinners eternally holding converse! The resultant question is inescapable: Will all who die in Christ see and converse, across the dividing gulf, through all eternity, with their own loved ones who have died out of Christ?
If the recital is conceded to be but a parable, but used to sustain the concept of the conscious torment of the wicked, then we are confronted with the universally
accepted principle that a doctrine cannot safely be built upon a parable or an allegory alone, especially when it contradicts the plain teachings of Scripture. To do so involves the one who attempts it in absurdity and contradiction. We repeat that this parabolic discourse of the Master was not designed to teach conditions the other side of death, or in the unseen world in the intermediate state, but to convey great moral lessons. Edersheim (Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah) rightly says that doctrine cannot be derived from this parable concerning the other world, or the character or duration of future punishments, or the moral improvement of those in Gehenna.* We feel that to use it as proof that men receive their rewards at death is squarely to contradict Christ Himself, who states explicitly that the righteous and the wicked receive their reward, “when the Son of man shall come in his glory” (see Matt. 25:31-41).
If dead men actually hold converse with one another, then the parable contradicts the plainest declarations of Scripture—“His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish” (Ps. 146:4); “The dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence” (Ps. 115:17).
Abraham himself had died and his sons buried him (Gen. 25:8, 9). Nor is there any account of his resurrection. In the Biblical account (Hebrews 11) he, like the other patriarchs, is awaiting that “better” resurrection at the second coming of Christ.
*And Dr. William Smith (Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2,r. 1038) insists: “It is impossible to ground the proof of an important theological doctrine on a passage which confessedly abounds in Jewish metaphor.”
So the contention that the reward is received at death (a) nullifies the judgment, anticipating its predicted time; (b) completely contradicts what we believe to be the clear testimony of Scripture that the dead are asleep; (c) represents disembodied spirits as possessing bodily members; and (d) puts the spirits in full view of one another.