CHAPTER EIGHT
First Resurrection And Second Death
An Immortal Soul or Resurrection of the Dead
The interpretation of figurative language, metaphors, and symbolic passages
Part 1: The rich man and Lazarus. The intermediate bosom
Part 2: Israel's destruction, her weeping, gnashing of teeth, outer darkness, Matthew 24 - Preterits Eschatology - Realized Eschatology - The A. D. 70 Doctrine - The day of the Lord - 2 Peter 3
Part 3: The symbolical pictures of Revelation versus a literal interpretation - Souls under the altar - The smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever - The Lake of Fire
Part 4: Forever and ever of the King James Version - Eternal
Those who believe in the Pagan doctrine of an immortal soul from birth and Hell have no plain statements. That they must reinterpret figurative language, metaphors, and symbolic passages into literal statements shows the weakness of their belief that it is from man and not from God. Parables and figurative language are made to be superior over plain statements. The clear language must be changed to agree with what is thought to have been said in the symbolic language; therefore, many literal passages must be made figurative to keep them from being in conflict. Many of the metaphors about the destruction of Israel have been discussed in the first seven chapters. This chapter is a look at some of the symbolic passages that are change into literal statements.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PART ONE
The Interpretation Of Figurative Language
Metaphors And Symbolic Passages
THE INTERMEDIATE BOSOM: THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
Luke 16:19-31
Does hades have a good side and a bad side? This parable is one of the most used scriptures to prove both (1) that persons have a part of them self’s that goes to Heaven or Hell, (2) or they have a part that goes into a holding place unto the resurrection. If this were a literal story and not a parable, as many believe it is, it would be both in conflict with and a contradiction of the belief that all go at once to Heaven or Hell at death; it would be positive proof that no one does.
Many realizing that the Orthodox teaching that a person goes to Heaven or Hell at death is not from the Bible, and no one will be in Heaven before and without a resurrection and judgment, knew they had to have an intermediate or third place that is not Heaven or Hell to put immortal souls (if there were immortal souls) from death unto the resurrection. Is the best they can do is to try to make a parable into a true story, making Abraham's bosom into a holding place unto the resurrection? In doing this, they must set aside the plain teaching on death and the resurrection as if they did not exist. Making this into a real story, and not a parable may be a life or death struggle with them, for the Bible gives them nowhere for the living soul to be living in before the resurrection, There is no other place, and they need to make this into a real place. If they do not, they have living souls with nowhere for them to be living in before the resurrection and judgment. They cannot have them in Heaven or their Hell unto the resurrection, but they must have somewhere to keep them. They cannot even agree among themselves, for some say it is a parable, and some say, "No it is a true story." Many that think it is a parable will use it as if it were a true story; they say it teaches the same thing either way. "Notes On The Parables Of Our Lord" by R. C. Trench is ranked as one of the best on the parables. He not only says this is a parable, but on page 17 says parables are not to be made the first sources to teach a doctrine. To go from the clear to the obscure has been recognized as the law of Scriptural interpretation, but this has been forgotten by those looking for an argument to sustain a weak position, and often invent for themselves support in parables. On page 162 Trench says it is most important to keep in mind that this parable has as it's central thought the rebuke of unbelief. Nevertheless, this parable is used as the first and only source to teach a doctrine that is not found in any other part of the Bible.
Some that believe in Hell often point to Luke 16 to prove there is torment after death, but when pushed, most of them will admit hades is not Hell, but they need to prove there is torment in Hell; therefore, use the torment of the rich man in hades in this parable and hope in some way to transfer the torment in hades to torment in Hell. Even if this were a true story and not a parable, it may prove that there is torment before the resurrection, but it would prove nothing about what will be after the resurrection, or that there will even be a Hell after the resurrection; yet, Luke 16 is one of the most used passages to try to prove there is a Hell, and that there is torment in Hell even though there is nothing about Hell in the parable. They are desperately looking for proof of Hell, which they cannot find. It says nothing of Heaven. Hell, or a soul. The complete silence of the scriptures about the dead being anywhere before the resurrection other than the grave is a deathblow to the doctrine of an immortal soul; Those who make this parable into a literal story and are trying to prove the Abraham's bosom view, or to prove Hell, use it to put aside hundreds of plain passages of scripture.
Five "a certain" in a row
Christ used "a certain" 18 times, and all 18 are in parables (Matthew 18:23; 21:28; 31:23; 22:2; Mark 12:1; Luke 7:41; 10:30; 10:31; 10:33; 12:16; 13:6; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; 16:19: 16:20; 19:12; 20:9). No one questions that the other 16 times "a certain" is used as being in parables, only the two in this parable to make them fit with the literal view, but it is desperately needed for this not to be a parable for it to be proof of the doctrine of Hell, even if it makes the passage contradict what is believed about Hell.
The objection of some is that it is not called a parable. Less than half, only 11 of the 26 parables in Luke are called a parable. The three parables before this one that are a part of the series of five parables all spoken to the Pharisee and Scribes in the same speech are not called parables, but no one questions them being parables. The objection of others is that parables do not use proper names. "And he took up his parable, and said, 'From Aram has Balak brought me, the king of Moab from the mountains of the East: come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel'" (Numbers 23:7). Not one but five proper names are used in one parable. "Satan" (Mark 4:14) and "the son of man" (Matthew 13:37) are used in parables, also Ezekiel 23:1-4.
This is the last in a series of five parables all spoken to the Pharisee and Scribes, all in the same speech. All five have people, but no one takes the people in the first four to be actual people, but fictitious people used to teach the Pharisees to whom these five parables were spoken.
1. A man with a hundred sheep (Luke 15:3-7).
2. The woman with two coins (Luke 15:8-10).
3. Two sons and a father (Luke 15:11-32).
4. The cunning servant (Luke 16:1-17).
5. Rich man, Lazarus, Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:14-31).
Those who make this parable into a literal story do not accept the main part of it as being literal. They do not accept Abraham’s bosom as being a literal place, but as a symbolic place; his literal bosom had turned to dust many years before, and there would not be room for even one person in Abraham’s literal bosom; therefore, if part of it cannot be literal none of it can be literal, if it is a true story then all of it must be literal. It is a symbolic picture or a true story? It cannot be a mixture of the two; it cannot be part literal and part a true story.
If one attempts to explain all the elements as though they are literal, the difficulties of making this be a true story will be seen.
IF THIS WERE A TRUE STORY AND NOT A PARABLE
If this is a true story, it is in direct conflict with Christ and Paul. Christ said, "For you shall be recompensed in the resurrection of the just" (Luke 14:14); but if this is a true story, their recompense is in "Abraham's bosom" immediately after death before the resurrection. What will happen after death? Christ said, "For the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs (not in Abraham's bosom) shall hear his voice, and come forth: they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:28-29). If hades is not the grave, no one will be in the tombs when Christ comes. Paul said, "There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord...shall give me at that day" (2 Timothy 4:8).
If this is a true story it would make Christ be against Christ in His this teaching and His teaching in Matthew 12:15; Mark 3:24-25; Luke 14:17-18. The resurrection keeps getting in the way of the immortal soul doctrine, for it seems to be more than just a little difficult to have a resurrection of something that is alive and not dead.
If this is a true story it makes the judgment a mockery and an empty show. All would be judged instantly after death. The wicked would now be being punished and the saved would now be being rewarded before the Judgment Day; therefore, both punishment and reward would begin immediately after death without the judgment, not at the resurrection.
If this is a true story, it makes the resurrection useless and not needed by making the saved be rewarded before and without the death of Christ. No one would be dead. It makes void the teaching of Christ about the resurrection of the dead at His coming. Not only would the resurrection be useless, but also a lie for if no one is dead, no one can be resurrected. The dead would be more alive than we are, and at the second coming of Christ, no one will be in the grave to "come forth" (John 5:28-29). They would have to "come back" from somewhere, but it would not be a resurrection of the dead. (1) "Abraham's bosom," if made to be a real place in a true story, (2) and the teaching of going directly to Heaven or Hell after death, both makes a resurrection impossible and not needed. A living soul or person coming back from Abraham's bosom, or from Heaven for the judgment would not be a resurrection of the dead. Any doctrine which makes the dead not be dead, and those who are asleep are not asleep, makes a resurrection an impossibility and useless. If this is a true story and not a parable, it is an undeniable contradiction of the Protestant view that everyone goes directly to Heaven or to Hell at death.
If this is a true story it makes the wages of sin being death not possible. There would be no real death; to be dead would be to be alive in another form. It is used to show the nature of punishment after death in Hell. Even if it were a true story, it says nothing about anything after the judgment or about Hell. It does not mention a soul, Heaven, or Hell, but is used to prove all three. It does not mention Jesus, God, the judgment, or the resurrection.
If this is a true story it would be an actual description of the intermediate state, which must be true in ever detail, such as praying to Abraham, able to see and hear those in torment. Both the saved and the lost would receive their reward or punishment immediately after death before and without the resurrection and Judgment Day.
If this is a true story it is when the rich man had brothers living on earth, not after the judgment; therefore, could not be used to prove that is a Hell after the judgment by those who believe the Abraham bosom version, for they teach no one will be in Hell unto after Judgment Day; according to then no one in Hell will have brothers living on the earth.
If this is a true story those who believe souls are immortal, and live after the death of the earthly body believe the rich man and Lazarus to be two immortal souls that do not have a body. This is the point they want to make, that a person has a soul that lives after the death of the body. Do they think one immortal soul would want another immortal soul to bring it a drop of water? They tell us (1) the "soul" of both the saved and the lost are in hades, (2) and tell us at death "the spirit returns to God" (Ecclesiastes 12:7). They have the "soul" in hades, and the "spirit" in Heaven at the same time.
If this were a true story those in Abraham's bosom would be able to hear and see those on the other side of the gulf. The gulf must be narrow enough to be in speaking distance. Could parents be in joy while they watched their children in agony? Could anyone be happy and have peace while they could hear the cries of anguish of those on the other side? Would you be happy if you were confined in a place for centuries where you had to see the agony, and hear the screaming of some of your loved ones; would that be a reward for anyone; but if this is a true story them you will see and hear their agony and screaming? Even most who believes this to be a parable do not believe the good and the bad dead can talk to each other, or that the dead can now come back and talk to the living, as the rich man wanted Lazarus to do. The view taught today is Abraham's bosom is like a lake of fire with the lost in the lake, and the saved sitting on the shore watching their torment, and according to the way Revelation 6:9-10 is used by those that use this passage to prove Hell those on the shore would be asking God to torment them more.
If it were a true story it is the one place in the Bible where the veil is drawn aside and we can see what it is like after death. We can even hear the conversation of those on the other side of death, and it was given to unbelievers, the Pharisees and Scribes. Luke 15 and 16 is a discourse to them, not to the Apostles.
If this were a true story we have a biblical example of praying to a Saint and to a person as if he were God, which we are forbidden to do. If after death anyone can pray to Saint Abraham, why do most who are orthodox teach we cannot pray to Saint Abraham or any other saint?
THIS PARABLE HAS ELEMENTS
THAT COULD NOT BE TRUE IN A TRUE STORY
(1) If this is not a parable, and if the rich man and Lazarus are real people, Then Abraham is also a real person, but he is now in the place of a God. Is he a God? No, for this is a parable, not a true story. If it were a true story it would make Abraham, not God, the source of reward after death. God or Christ is not mentioned in the parable. Coffman said the element of Abraham presiding over paradise forces one to seek an analogy, "Commentary On Luke," Abilene Christian University Press, page 385. Lazarus in the bosom of the God Abraham can have no parallel in reality; it is a parable, not a true story. It cannot be both. It cannot have both an allegorical and a literal meaning. If it did, how would one be different than the other? If taken literally, Abraham is put into a position of being a God, which he never was, is not, and never will be.
(2) Many regard this as a parable, but they reason and draw conclusions from it as though it were a literal true story. They go both ways as it suits them. "No reason why Luke 16:19-31 should be viewed only as a parable" Csonka, Guardian Of Truth, January 5, 1995, page 16. This article says it is a parable, but it’s author thinks it is also a true story both at the same time! It could not be both, and the article says it is a parable. It cannot, as many say, "mean the same thing" if it is a parable that it would if it is a true story. It must be 100% a true story, or 100% a parable. It cannot be a mixture of the two. If it is a literal true story, every detail must be true and have a literal true meaning. Those who say it is a true story find parts of it that will not fit into what they believe, and always try to make these parts be a metaphor or parable. Abraham's bosom had literally turned to dust long before Jesus gives this parable. If his bosom is used symbolical, and is not his literal bosom, the rest of the account must also be symbolic, and this is not the literal experience of the two men after they died. Part of it cannot be a symbolic parable, and part of it literal. It must all be a parable or all literal. In a metaphor, one part of it is never figurative with another part literal. If Abraham's bosom is figurative, then Lazarus in his bosom must also be figurative and not a real person, otherwise, a real person would be in a figurative bosom. We cannot make any part of a metaphor be a literal statement just because we want it to be, or we need it to be to prove something we want to prove. If "Abraham's bosom" is a real place, where is Abraham? In his own bosom! If Abraham’s bosom is a real place, where is it, and why do we not read of it in any other passage; if it is not the grave, Heaven, or Hell, where is it? If this were a true story, both the rich man and Lazarus died, but they did not die, neither one would be dead, both would be alive before and without the resurrection.
E. D. Slough, evangelist, church of Christ: “We want to know if this was a real experience, and if it teaches the condition of the dead. Let it be remembered, then, according to the philosophy that they are ‘spirits.’ Will you tell me how you reason that a ‘spirit’s tongue’ can be cooled with water? ‘Oh’ you say, ‘that represents’—hold on, no representations go in a real circumstance. If you say it is real, stay with it. This policy of making it half literal and half figurative, just because there is an end to gain, is a nature ‘fakir’ in theology. It, therefore, represents nothing if it is a real circumstance, as you affirm. How could Lazarus carry a drop of water on his ‘spiritual’ finger? You say, ‘Oh, that doesn’t mean literal water.’ Well sir, it does or you do not mean what you say, I care not who you are. But reason with me. How could a spiritual tongue be cooled with a drop of water? ‘Oh,’ you say, ‘that must not be pressed too literal,’ no, not too literal, but just a literal as in any real circumstance. If it was a literal fact, then the details, which make it up are literal fact also. And to deny that it to deny your position. Here is a stubborn fact. The narrative say the rich man did call on Abraham to send Lazarus. That he wanted Lazarus to dip his finger in water. And he wanted Lazarus to put that water on his tongue. And the reason was that he was tormented in the flame. That very portrait, if it be a real circumstance, will compel every one of you to admit that the torment of the intermediate state is produced by fire. How do you like it? Then stop saying it is a sort of compunction of conscience. For understand, conscience was never known to call for water to cool it. Get that? It will no doubt be granted willingly, that for a real circumstance, the peculiar incidents connected with it here make this the most remarkable and phenomenal case on record. For we would be forced to concede that the spirit craved water, that it gets thirsty or feverish, and that it asked a favor of Abraham instead of God, that it was God who rendered the verdict and cast him in prison, that Abraham has no right or jurisdiction in the matter, and a hundred other things that make this narrative an absolute mystery, if it be a real circumstance.” “The Indictment Of Eternal Torment—The Self-negation Of A Monstrous Doctrine,” page 262, F. L. Rowe, Publisher, 1914.
(3) This is the only parable in which some try to make an allegory literal, but only the parts of it they want to be literal for they do not want the whole story to be literal. It would teach things they do not believe. It would teach that the many (the poor) will be saved, and that few (the rich) will be lost. What about Abraham? He was very rich. It is not said the rich man was evil or sinful, just rich; but those who teach innate immortal have a real person in torment before the judgment, before he is judged and found guilty. It is not said Lazarus was good and faithful, or even that he knows of God, just that he was poor, as are millions; but being rich is not sinful, and being poor will not save. Not one good thing is said about Lazarus, not one bad thing about the rich man. There is nothing negative said about the rich man, and nothing positive about Lazarus in their lifetime, but they have Lazarus who they say is a real person being rewarded before being judged.
(4) It would teach that the rich man, who would then be in a supernatural state (not of this earth); therefore, most likely have a much greater knowledge of supernatural things than we now have, that he would believe or know that the dead could come back to earth and teach the living, the rich mans brothers. This is not what most believes, but it would greatly support the spiritualist who says they can call the dead back.
(5) What bodies would the rich man or Lazarus have when their earthly body was still in the grave? They will not have a "spiritual body" unto the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:44). Do disembodied spirits that have no body and are "immaterial, invisible" have human body parts? The rich man has "eyes" and "tongue." Lazarus has a "finger." Abraham has a "bosom." Is there a third kind of body, which has these earthly parts? What would a "spirit" or "soul," which does not have an earthly body want with water? Only in speaking in a metaphor can it be said that God or any spiritual being has a human part, or to want water. How could an "immaterial, invisible part of man" have body parts or want water, if this were a true story and not a parable? It would make this "immaterial, invisible part of man" very material.
(6) If the rich man were a real person in torment, God would be unjust to be tormenting him without his knowing why. If he knew why he was being tormented, he would have known that Lazarus could not come to take his torment away by bring him water.
(7) The rich man wanted Lazarus to go to his brothers "from the dead." How could Lazarus "go to them from the dead" (Luke 16:30) or "rise from the dead," (Luke 16:31) if he were not dead but were alive in Heaven or Abraham's bosom?
(8) If this were not a parable it would only teach what would be in the intermediate state from death unto the judgment; there is nothing in it that would teach eternal torment after the Judgment Day. Nothing is said about Heaven, or anyone being in Heaven or Hell.
Al Maxey: "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" Reflections, Issue #28, April 4, 2003.
Adam Clarke: "Let it be remembered that by the consent of all (except the basely interested), no metaphor is ever to be produced in proof of a doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the most pointed and express evidence on which to establish the faith of our souls." Clarkes Notes on Matthew 5:26.
R. C, Trench: "The parables are not to be made first sources of doctrine. Doctrines other wise grounded may be illustrated, or even further confirmed by them; but it is not allowable to constitute doctrines first by their aid. For from the literal to the figurative, from the clearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of Scripture interpretation. This rule, however, has been often forgotten, and controversialists, looking around for arguments with which to sustain some weak position, often invent for themselves supports in these" Notes On The Parables Of Our Lord, page 17,1948.
Luke 16:19-32 – Very similar – Isaiah 14:9-20.
Summary: the three conflicting views. Three different gospels Galatians 1:6-9.
Which one do you believe? All three cannot be true. Many who believes the dead go to hades to be with the rich man in torment or to be in "Abraham's bosom" also believe and teach the soul goes directly to Heaven at death to "be with the Lord." They seem not to be able to see that they are making the dead go immediately to Heaven or Hell after death; therefore, they have made this, which they teach as a true story impossible. No one could be in "Abraham's bosom" and in Heaven simultaneously. How many of the three conflicting gospels do you believe? Does the orthodox view not know what the orthodox view is? If the dead go to Heaven or Hell at death, why did Luke say the rich man was in hades; hades and Hell are not the same place, yet this is one of not the most used passages to prove the lost go to eternal torment in Hell at death. Do those who believe the Abraham's bosom view forget that they teach no one will be in Heaven before the judgment? Yes, they almost always do at funerals and have the dead looking down at their own funeral. Those who teach dead loved ones are in Heaven looking down at us almost always make Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom be in Heaven, and the rich man to be in Hell; do they think Abraham is literally in Heaven, and Lazarus is literally in Abraham bosom in Heaven with those in Hell literally asking Abraham to send those in his bosom down to Hell with water?
E. D. Slough, evangelist, church of Christ: “Useless, perhaps, to point to Johnson…and hundreds of other learned men who select this parable to prove an immedi