Jesus's Death and the Thief

[real eyes realize]

Oops, I edited your post instead of posting a new one, i'll fix it shortly... sweatdrop

Quote:

Sorry, just some clarification would be great...
In the 3rd paragraph you mentioned that the paradise where Samuel ended up must be in the ground because he came up as opposed to heaven where Jesus went or he would have come down.

Yet then you locate paradise in the 3rd heaven & move God's throne, Jesus and so on to a higher location yet again - deep space/beyond. The bible refers to 3 heavens (the Jews apparently hold to 7) - the atmospheric heavens (for the birds, clouds etc), the starry heavens for the sun, moon, stars etc, and heaven where God, angels etc dwell. Even if we added a fourth heaven to allow for paradise in the middle would Samuel be coming down or up?

Before Jesus resurrected, I would think the "elohim"/angels?/divine escort would've come up from the ground too (as they did with Samuel). But after he's resurrected though, he ascends into the clouds and he'll come back from the clouds. So wherever paradise is, I'm suggesting it's in a different direction than where Jesus went to after his resurrection / where he is right now.  

[jack0076970]

real eyes realize

There's some sort of communication; Abraham is conversing with the rich man, yet they're on opposite sides of the chasm. We're not told why Lazarus isn't speaking; we can't really speculate beyond what Jesus decided to divulge. The only thing Jesus said about the side Lazarus and Abraham are on, in terms of description, is that it's a place of comfort (Lk 16:25), whereas the rich man is in some sort of agony. Taking the rich man's thirst into consideration and the heat, it almost seems like the same treatment he gave Lazarus in life, he's now receiving in death as he waits for his resurrection (i.e. not satiating Lazarus' physical needs or alleviating his pain, even though he had more than enough money, food, and linen clothes to spare. Instead he left Lazarus exposed to the elements and the sun, never invited him in to eat or rather never went out to him to give him food).

I guess you could say some sort of agony, verse 24 says in different versions "I am in agony in this fire"... "I am tormented in this flame" but there is certainly far more to this passage than the apparent hellfire & certainly the dip of water would do nothing to ease his pain.

Sorry haven't answered more. Gotta go to work now but will get back to it later - good discussion!  

[jack0076970]

real eyes realize

Oops, I edited your post instead of posting a new one, i'll fix it shortly... sweatdrop

Quote:

Sorry, just some clarification would be great...
In the 3rd paragraph you mentioned that the paradise where Samuel ended up must be in the ground because he came up as opposed to heaven where Jesus went or he would have come down.

Yet then you locate paradise in the 3rd heaven & move God's throne, Jesus and so on to a higher location yet again - deep space/beyond. The bible refers to 3 heavens (the Jews apparently hold to 7) - the atmospheric heavens (for the birds, clouds etc), the starry heavens for the sun, moon, stars etc, and heaven where God, angels etc dwell. Even if we added a fourth heaven to allow for paradise in the middle would Samuel be coming down or up?

Before Jesus resurrected, I would think the "elohim"/angels?/divine escort would've come up from the ground too (as they did with Samuel). But after he's resurrected though, he ascends into the clouds and he'll come back from the clouds. So wherever paradise is, I'm suggesting it's in a different direction than where Jesus went to after his resurrection / where he is right now.

"-2 - I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago; whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows; such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
-3- And I know such a man; whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows;
-4- how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)
I think it's fair enough to conclude then that the paradise refered to in this passage of scripture is not the same as the one alluded to in Luke 16 as in verse 4 it clearly states that the man was caught up and if it's in the opposite direction from where Jesus went when He was resurrected...

real eyes realize

You're forgetting that it's only separated by a chasm, but you can see and communicate with people on either side of the chasm (one side being Paradise, the other being Hell). Like I said, Lake of Fire (Gehenna, sometimes translated as "hell" too) and Hades (also translated as hell in other places) are two different places. Hell/Hades gets thrown into the lake of fire/Gehenna in Revelation 20:14. The rich man went to hell/hades when he died. Lazarus went to paradise when he died. The 2nd resurrection has to happen before people get thrown into the lake/gehenna.

real eyes realize

The only thing Jesus said about the side Lazarus and Abraham are on, in terms of description, is that it's a place of comfort (Lk 16:25), whereas the rich man is in some sort of agony. "I am in agony in this fire"... "I am tormented in this flame"

You know when you're sitting down to dinner watching some tv in your nice house & an ad comes on for someone like World Vision and you see images of starving children in Africa... or the Salvos maybe at Christmas time and they put on a picture of a family with absolutely or next to nothing relying on them to just get by - day by day... it's a little uncomfortable isn't it.

Just imagine now that a parent and a child die, the parent ends up in "paradise" awaiting the 2nd resurrection, the child on the other side. The parent must spend from that time until their trip to heaven watching their child in agony and torment, hear their crying and their pleas and yet not be able to do a thing. Then multiply that by the fact that everyone will know someone on the other side or at the very least will be surrounded by people who know someone on the other side...

By what stretch of the imagination could this possibly be a place of comfort?  

[jack0076970]

To further complicate matters with regards to paradise and in the interpretation assumed from Luke 16... and the reference in 2nd Corinthians 12

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God." ' (Revelation 2:7)

and where is the Tree of Life now - originally in the garden of Eden?

- 1 - "And he showed Me a pure River of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from The throne of God and of The Lamb.
-2- in The middle of its street, and on either side of The River, was The tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of The tree were for The healing of The nations.
-3- and there shall be no more curse, But The throne of God and of The lamb shall be in it, and his servants shall serve him.
-4- they shall see his face, and his name shall be on their foreheads.
-5- there shall be no night there: they need no lamp nor light of The sun, for The Lord God gives them light. and they shall reign forever and ever.
(Revelation 22:1-5)  

[real eyes realize]

jack0076970

"-2 - I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago; whether in the body I do not know, or whether out of the body I do not know, God knows; such a one was caught up to the third heaven.
-3- And I know such a man; whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows;
-4- how he was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter." (2 Corinthians 12:2-4)

I think it's fair enough to conclude then that the paradise refered to in this passage of scripture is not the same as the one alluded to in Luke 16 as in verse 4 it clearly states that the man was caught up and if it's in the opposite direction from where Jesus went when He was resurrected...

That is a good point. Maybe "paradise" shouldn't be ascribed to the place of comfort that Lazarus and Abraham are in. Yet, that brings a little confusion: Jesus is saying a "paradise" awaits the thief and seeing as they're about to die in Luke 23:43, I wonder, is he talking about being in paradise before the resurrections? or in paradise after the resurrections? if it's before the resurrections, then it is where Lazarus and Abraham are; if Jesus is referring to being in paradise after the resurrections, then it's not where Lazarus and Abraham are located right now, but most likely referring to the new earth spoken of in Revelation 21 & 22. In Revelation 2:7, Jesus outright calls it the paradise of God ("[...] To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God"), yet we don't get to see the tree of life until Revelation 22 (that's after the tribulation, the 1st resurrection, the 1000 years, the 2nd resurrection, the Great White Throne judgment and creation of the new earth).

Yeah, I think it's more than fair enough not to refer to it (where Lazarus and Abraham are right now) as "paradise", especially if Lk 23:43 is talking about the paradise which contains the tree of life and the punctuation isn't inspired (but if the punctuation is as it should be, then that argues for a pre-resurrection paradise). I guess it would be more accurate to just call it "the grave" with its subdivisions of torment vs. comfort.

edit: I should've refreshed the page before posting, lol. I see you referred to Revelation 2:7 & Revelation 22 too.

jack0076970

You know when you're sitting down to dinner watching some tv in your nice house & an ad comes on for someone like World Vision and you see images of starving children in Africa... or the Salvos maybe at Christmas time and they put on a picture of a family with absolutely or next to nothing relying on them to just get by - day by day... it's a little uncomfortable isn't it.

Just imagine now that a parent and a child die, the parent ends up in "paradise" awaiting the 2nd resurrection, the child on the other side. The parent must spend from that time until their trip to heaven watching their child in agony and torment, hear their crying and their pleas and yet not be able to do a thing. Then multiply that by the fact that everyone will know someone on the other side or at the very least will be surrounded by people who know someone on the other side...

By what stretch of the imagination could this possibly be a place of comfort?

Jesus didn't mention what they feel (or if they even feel anything) when they see others tormented. Lazarus was in comfort according to Jesus and the same could be said of Abraham since they're on the same side of the chasm. We know that Abraham at the very least can see the rich man and even if Abraham wasn't related, he wasn't the type of guy who was indifferent towards strangers. Abraham cared enough about Sodom and Gomorrah to intercede for them and cared enough about the two strangers to show them hospitality; he's clearly not the type of guy to only care for his relatives. Maybe Abraham (and Lazarus) are numbed to any pain? Only God knows (and anyone who's actually there of course).

You're assuming they must feel guilt or pain watching others suffer. If it's a place of comfort, like Jesus says, then it's a place of comfort. So they can't be feeling any negativity on that side. That's all we can say for sure. Given Lazarus' lack of response or involvement in the conversation, maybe (and this is going into the realm of speculation a bit) those on the "comforted" side are blinded to those they knew in life and that would explain why Lazarus isn't answering back / not even involved in the conversation; on the otherhand, the rich man, who is on the side of torment, as part of that torment is allowed to recognize people he knew in life. Notice he's always addressing Abraham, telling him to order Lazarus to come alleviate his pain, or asking Abraham to resurrect Lazarus and send him off to warn the rich man's family; he never addresses Lazarus directly, perhaps because he won't respond? Again, I'm speculating. The only thing we know for sure is that people feel comfort on that side of the chasm.  

[jack0076970]

real eyes realize

That is a good point. Maybe "paradise" shouldn't be ascribed to the place of comfort that Lazarus and Abraham are in. Yet, that brings a little confusion: Jesus is saying a "paradise" awaits the thief and seeing as they're about to die in Luke 23:43, I wonder, is he talking about being in paradise before the resurrections? or in paradise after the resurrections? if it's before the resurrections, then it is where Lazarus and Abraham are; if Jesus is referring to being in paradise after the resurrections, then it's not where Lazarus and Abraham are located right now, but most likely referring to the new earth spoken of in Revelation 21 & 22. In Revelation 2:7, Jesus outright calls it the paradise of God ("[...] To the one who is victorious, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God"), yet we don't get to see the tree of life until Revelation 22 (that's after the tribulation, the 1st resurrection, the 1000 years, the 2nd resurrection, the Great White Throne judgment and creation of the new earth).

Yeah, I think it's more than fair enough not to refer to it (where Lazarus and Abraham are right now) as "paradise", especially if Lk 23:43 is talking about the paradise which contains the tree of life and the punctuation isn't inspired (but if the punctuation is as it should be, then that argues for a pre-resurrection paradise). I guess it would be more accurate to just call it "the grave" with its subdivisions of torment vs. comfort.

Not wanting to ignore the first paragraph... there's lots of study in there! I think it's safe to say that the grave rather than paradise is the destination after death (and before Jesus' second coming and the resurrection of the righteous dead) given the context of scripture we've discussed and it's consistency with other passages of scripture besides these...

"28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice
29 and come forth; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." (John 5:28,29)

Peter speaking of King David
-29- "Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.
-30- "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,
-31- "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.
-32- "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.
-33- "Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear.
-34- "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand,
-35- Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." ' (Acts 2:29-35)

real eyes realize

Jesus didn't mention what they feel (or if they even feel anything) when they see others tormented. Lazarus was in comfort according to Jesus and the same could be said of Abraham since they're on the same side of the chasm. We know that Abraham at the very least can see the rich man and even if Abraham wasn't related, he wasn't the type of guy who was indifferent towards strangers. Abraham cared enough about Sodom and Gomorrah to intercede for them and cared enough about the two strangers to show them hospitality; he's clearly not the type of guy to only care for his relatives. Maybe Abraham (and Lazarus) are numbed to any pain? Only God knows (and anyone who's actually there of course).

You're assuming they must feel guilt or pain watching others suffer. If it's a place of comfort, like Jesus says, then it's a place of comfort. So they can't be feeling any negativity on that side. That's all we can say for sure. Given Lazarus' lack of response or involvement in the conversation, maybe (and this is going into the realm of speculation a bit) those on the "comforted" side are blinded to those they knew in life and that would explain why Lazarus isn't answering back / not even involved in the conversation; on the otherhand, the rich man, who is on the side of torment, as part of that torment is allowed to recognize people he knew in life. Notice he's always addressing Abraham, telling him to order Lazarus to come alleviate his pain, or asking Abraham to resurrect Lazarus and send him off to warn the rich man's family; he never addresses Lazarus directly, perhaps because he won't respond? Again, I'm speculating. The only thing we know for sure is that people feel comfort on that side of the chasm.

Where scripture is silent then speculating is probably all we can do and there's a lot of stuff we can only wonder about until we get to ask Jesus about it all.

Regarding what is felt/not felt or even known by those in the graves, Solomon has this to say in the book of Ecclesiastes 9:5,6
"For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten.
Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun."
It could be used to substantiate the idea but it doesn't seem to differentiate between the righteous & wicked dead. The other observation in suggesting that the righteous dead are blinded to those they knew in life doesn't allow for at least pity for those who are then suffering - they kind of become like the rich man in life...  

[real eyes realize]

Solomon is describing the bodies of dead people from the perspective of someone who is still living: those who have passed no longer participate in earthly activities; they would need a living, operable body to do so. Once you pass, your body is just a hollow shell, not able to do anything, it's not aware of things that happen on the earth around them because you're no longer a part of it; to the living person looking at the carcass, they see no evidence of emotions or thought in you (the Israelites did not practice cremation, so they're looking at an emotionless, still body—showing no signs of jealousy, sadness, gladness, or thought—and it's from a living person's perspective that it looks as if we're sleeping:

• their body can't eat or share a meal with you even if you bring it to their tomb/burial site (and their body is not even aware if you do it; it remains the same).
  
  
• the dead person's body can't labor to achieve anything while they're dead (no money, no medals, no more recognition—unless you have / leave behind an estate that continues to crank out merchandise for the world to consume in your name, but that's your estate not you).
  
  
• as the generations pass, the typical person on earth will be forgotten since their personal belongings deteriorate, leaving nothing behind as a reminder (modern equivalent: not only will the hard copies deteriorate, but once the data files get corrupted, they're lost, alongwith any memory of you, your writings, your videos, your photos, etc...).
  
  
• The wisdom and knowledge we learn are in relation to things that happen under the sun, knowledge as it pertains to earthly things of the era you lived in; so that information becomes useless after death (that, at least, remains the same no matter how high-tech things get). Even upon resurrection, that information is useless because you'll be living in a different world by then. You can't put that knowledge to use while you're dead because you won't be interacting with earthly things; and, again, from the perspective of a living person, and taking into consideration that the Israelites didn't cremate people, your body appears as if it's sleeping, no emotions, no thinking. The only information that is useful upon resurrection is how to love others; that's something that will never cease.

What's left to discern is whether the tomb (or an urn if you're cremated) is equivalent to the grave/the realm of the dead that the scriptures speak of and whether or not you (not your body) are aware of anything at that point. I don't think the tomb is equivalent to where the spirit goes after death, nor do I think that you lose awareness of yourself. Job, among others, sheds some light on what we are aware of after death; in Job 14 for instance, Job is asking YHWH to hide him in the grave (allow him to die / to sleep) until YHWH's wrath passes; in that way, he doesn't have to witness the disaster coming upon the earth, and then asks YHWH to subsequently resurrect him after it's over. So again, just like Solomon is saying, dead people are clueless to what's happening on earth. But, by the time we get to v. 21-22 he says this:

21 His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them.

22 But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.

So the man is dead. When the living come to honor him at his tomb or when his sons die (and probably buried near him since family tombs/plots were and still are common), he doesn't know it because it's something that happens on earth, something the dead can't witness even though their body is there; yet, when that happens his soul is mourning? Does it suggest his soul is aware that his sons died? or he's mourning over his own death only? His soul is mourning over something and thus aware of something, yet he's dead. On a related note, perhaps it was only in the rich man's case that Lazarus was blinded to the rich man's plea (his "just desserts" for how he particularly treated Lazarus in life). Maybe you do mourn and feel grieved for your family and others, hence an added reason why you need to be comforted at first. Again, all we know is that it's a place of comfort; I guess the real issue is whether we're aware of anything, and aside from the rich man and Lazarus, Job implies that our souls are aware.

There are other instances in scripture that seem to speak of an awareness in the realm of the dead / the grave; for instance, in Isaiah 14:9-11, the spirits are astir, coming to greet someone who has just recently died:

" 9 The realm of the dead below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you— all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from their thrones— all those who were kings over the nations. 10 They will all respond, they will say to you, “You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us.” 11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you. (NIV)

I guess some could argue it's just a figure of speech, but what if it's not. What if the spirits of the dead really are aware. I'm more convinced of the latter because Christ preached to spirits; what's the use in preaching if they can't hear or think about what you're saying and thus make a decision? It hasn't been quoted yet, so:

1 Peter 3:18-20 (KJV)

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

It seems to suggest that after he was made alive in the Spirit (resurrected?) he went to preach to the imprisoned spirits that were once alive during Noah's time (tangent: that would explain his ghost-like abilities of walking through locked doors, but still having a "solid" body that Thomas could poke and examine in John 20:24-29; I say "solid" because of Luke 24:39). Anyway, those imprisoned spirits lived in the days of Noah, they're dead now/not in a body/not on Earth, in some invisible/spirit realm, and it's to those individuals Jesus preached to. It's necessary to be conscious/aware if you're going to be listening to what is preached. Ergo, there must be awareness beyond this physical, earthly life, in the realm of the dead / of the not resurrected.  

[jack0076970]

Thanks RER for the texts & comments - have some thoughts but definitely needs some more prayer time & study to deal with properly.

One thought before I get back to the comments (later) that came out of your texts above was another reference to the time that we spend in the grave... sorry it's a little long and not immediately on topic but goes back to something we were discussing earlier & the texts are great!

-12- So man lies down and does not rise. till the heavens are no more, They will not awake nor be roused from their sleep.
-13- "Oh, that You would hide me in the grave, That You would conceal me until Your wrath is past, That You would appoint me a set time, and remember me!
-14- If a man dies, shall he live again? all the days of My hard service I will wait, till My change comes. Job 14

In context 2 Peter 3 describes the 2nd coming
-1- Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle (in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder),
-2- that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior,
-3- knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
-4- and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
-5- For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
-6- by which The world that Then existed perished, being flooded with water.
-7- But The heavens and The earth which are Now preserved by The same word, are reserved for fire until The day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
-8- But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with The Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
-9- The Lord is not slack concerning his Promise, as some count slackness, But is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish But that all should come to repentance.
-10- But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.
-11- Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
-12- looking for and hastening The coming of The day of God, because of which The heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and The elements will melt with fervent heat?
-13- Nevertheless we, according to his Promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.

and in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says
-51- Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed;
-52- in a moment, in The twinkling of an eye, at The last trumpet. for The trumpet will sound, and The dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
-53- for this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
-54- So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
-55- "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?"  

[jack0076970]

hopefully will get a response in tomorrow or the next day- just looking at the passage from 1 Peter 3 - quite a good study but there's always the inherent danger when you start you get sidetracked by other things previously passed over but really stand out.

One classic example that I came across in Ecclesiastes relating to Solomon's fall - often we simply quote 1 Kings 11:1-8 but in Ecclesiastes 7:26 we read Solomon's personal reflection on his poor decisions - "I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare."  

[jack0076970]

real eyes realize

Solomon is describing the bodies of dead people from the perspective of someone who is still living: those who have passed no longer participate in earthly activities; they would need a living, operable body to do so. Once you pass, your body is just a hollow shell, not able to do anything, it's not aware of things that happen on the earth around them because you're no longer a part of it; to the living person looking at the carcass, they see no evidence of emotions or thought in you (the Israelites did not practice cremation, so they're looking at an emotionless, still body—showing no signs of jealousy, sadness, gladness, or thought—and it's from a living person's perspective that it looks as if we're sleeping:

• their body can't eat or share a meal with you even if you bring it to their tomb/burial site (and their body is not even aware if you do it; it remains the same).
  
  
• the dead person's body can't labor to achieve anything while they're dead (no money, no medals, no more recognition—unless you have / leave behind an estate that continues to crank out merchandise for the world to consume in your name, but that's your estate not you).
  
  
• as the generations pass, the typical person on earth will be forgotten since their personal belongings deteriorate, leaving nothing behind as a reminder (modern equivalent: not only will the hard copies deteriorate, but once the data files get corrupted, they're lost, alongwith any memory of you, your writings, your videos, your photos, etc...).
  
  
• The wisdom and knowledge we learn are in relation to things that happen under the sun, knowledge as it pertains to earthly things of the era you lived in; so that information becomes useless after death (that, at least, remains the same no matter how high-tech things get). Even upon resurrection, that information is useless because you'll be living in a different world by then. You can't put that knowledge to use while you're dead because you won't be interacting with earthly things; and, again, from the perspective of a living person, and taking into consideration that the Israelites didn't cremate people, your body appears as if it's sleeping, no emotions, no thinking. The only information that is useful upon resurrection is how to love others; that's something that will never cease.

Hey RER, sorry for the apparent delay. I don't like treating any bible discussion lightly - lots of study (lots that I won’t list here yet) besides life stuff in general to deal with…

"For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; Nevermore will they have a share In anything done under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6)
Does Solomon refer to the dead from the perspective of the living and the dead’s level of activity under the sun? (It does after all mention that at the end of v6)

It’s certainly true of you first 2 points, a body cannot do those things… share a meal or do any kind of work much in the same way I guess a rock or a stick cannot or a tissue box or your headphones…

What about the 3rd point assuming it is from the perspective of the living. The bible doesn’t say that this is the case for the “typical” dead person. It simply says the dead.
It’s true that a great many people are forgotten & nameless (at least from human perspective) – you only have to do some family history research to see how true that is. On my mother’s side, so the story goes, she had ancestors with titles (a baron & baroness) in the courts of King Louis 16 of France at the end of the 18th century who fled to Ireland about the time things were going bad for the king. The next records we have are of (likely) their grandson Patrick & his 2 daughters born in Ireland (1830’s early 40s), married in England (early 1860s) but nothing else of their families inbetween thanks to the destruction of the Irish census records in 1922. To all intents and purposes those others have been forgotten… but what about the 100s of millions of those who haven’t been forgotten & whose records exist? Some families trace back quite some distance - (interesting family tree article). What about the bible characters whose records date back to Adam & Eve no less?
Even if you look at the language of v5 – some translations state “and even their name is forgotten”(NIV) (or to that effect) yet others again like the KJV state “for the memory of them is forgotten” – the latter is a more accurate translation given the context and original language. It is not that the dead no nothing or have no more reward because someone else has forgotten them – that reading doesn’t make sense - but simply that they have no memory and therefore can’t.
… in verse 10 he goes on to add “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going.”

Solomon throughout the book of Ecclesiastes is lamenting the vanity, the futile emptiness of trying to be happy apart from God and what better person to write this book than he who had literally everything anyone could want and for the love of his many wives sacrificed that which he realised was all that mattered – his relationship with God. Nothing of what he achieved or hoped for mattered in the grave where rich and poor, wise and foolish became alike.

The 4th point is true – just think of the old Commodore & Amstrad 64 with their cassette loading games… how many of us old enough to remember give them any thought (let alone play time) beyond a nostalgic remembrance in the light of our current tech?

real eyes realize

What's left to discern is whether the tomb (or an urn if you're cremated) is equivalent to the grave/the realm of the dead that the scriptures speak of and whether or not you (not your body) are aware of anything at that point. I don't think the tomb is equivalent to where the spirit goes after death, nor do I think that you lose awareness of yourself. Job, among others, sheds some light on what we are aware of after death; in Job 14 for instance, Job is asking YHWH to hide him in the grave (allow him to die / to sleep) until YHWH's wrath passes; in that way, he doesn't have to witness the disaster coming upon the earth, and then asks YHWH to subsequently resurrect him after it's over. So again, just like Solomon is saying, dead people are clueless to what's happening on earth. But, by the time we get to v. 21-22 he says this:


21 His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low, but he perceiveth it not of them.

22 But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.

So the man is dead. When the living come to honor him at his tomb or when his sons die (and probably buried near him since family tombs/plots were and still are common), he doesn't know it because it's something that happens on earth, something the dead can't witness even though their body is there; yet, when that happens his soul is mourning? Does it suggest his soul is aware that his sons died? or he's mourning over his own death only? His soul is mourning over something and thus aware of something, yet he's dead. On a related note, perhaps it was only in the rich man's case that Lazarus was blinded to the rich man's plea (his "just desserts" for how he particularly treated Lazarus in life). Maybe you do mourn and feel grieved for your family and others, hence an added reason why you need to be comforted at first. Again, all we know is that it's a place of comfort; I guess the real issue is whether we're aware of anything, and aside from the rich man and Lazarus, Job implies that our souls are aware.

Just for clarity the term to be brought low doesn’t refer to the death of his children so it is not as though their “spirits” or “souls” are meeting.
When I first read v20 & 21 in the context of v20 I immediately thought of the funeral service – to honour someone in their death is something we do when we attend their funeral and to be brought low again in context is to be sorrowful, to be grieved - by their passing.
When you look however at the different translations (and the original language) another meaning presents itself. Other translations reword “brought low” to “become unimportant”, “become insignificant” or “dishonour”. In that context then and acknowledging that v20 doesn’t actually refer to any honour at a funeral service.

Something that is important to note is that in all these texts there is no distinction made between the righteous and wicked dead which does raise a serious contradiction if the story of Lazarus & the Rich Man are to be taken literally and in part the problem is that the story Jesus told is so often assumed to be a such and an entire state of the dead theology is built up on what was intended to be a parable.

Job clearly states that a man doesn’t know what happens to his children after he dies or anything else for that matter– in your own words they are “clueless to what’s happening on earth”. How can the rich man be concerned about his brothers when Job clearly states that a man knows nothing of their condition… in fact he knows nothing of what is taking place upon the earth.
Given this then if v22 is to be taken literally it contradicts both itself and reason. There in two parts are the division of body and soul.
The body in pain, and the soul mourning yet the body of itself is nothing as you’ve rightly said, the body is just a body – as Solomon says the body returns to dust and the spirit (or breath) to God who gave it. “Shall have pain” – is to be sore, to be grieved, afflicted, sad. This is figurative speech. The “soul” (wicked or righteous) knows nothing of what happens on the earth which includes the body – if the grave or Sheol and the tomb are distinct then for what does the soul mourn? Again this is figurative. Translated in both spirit & letter “But over him his flesh shall grieve; And over him his breath shall mourn.” When God created man He “… formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)

In harmony Clarke’s commentary notes the following
"In the daring spirit of oriental poetry," says he, "the flesh, or body, and the breath, are made conscious beings; the former lamenting its putrefaction in the grave, the latter mourning over the mouldering clay which it once enlivened."
Job in v22 concludes his discourse on the miserable condition of earthly man and his end result. On a side note I say earthly because even within his despondent prayer (he is in a miserable condition after all and doesn’t really understand why) which begins in v20 of the preceding chapter, he speaks of the hope that he has at Jesus second coming and in v16,17 is aware of God’s grace and righteousness –again aside Job declares in c21 v8-12
-8- "Look, I go forward, but He is not there, And backward, but I cannot perceive Him;
-9- When He works on the left hand, I cannot behold Him; When He turns to the right hand, I cannot see Him.
-10- But He knows the way that I take; When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold.
-11- My foot has held fast to His steps; I have kept His way and not turned aside.
-12- I have not departed from the commandment of His lips; I have treasured the words of His mouth More than my necessary food.
Scattered throughout Job are glimmers of hope & trust despite his despair over his condition but again that is aside.

real eyes realize

There are other instances in scripture that seem to speak of an awareness in the realm of the dead / the grave; for instance, in Isaiah 14:9-11, the spirits are astir, coming to greet someone who has just recently died:

" 9 The realm of the dead below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of the departed to greet you— all those who were leaders in the world; it makes them rise from their thrones— all those who were kings over the nations. 10 They will all respond, they will say to you, “You also have become weak, as we are; you have become like us.” 11 All your pomp has been brought down to the grave, along with the noise of your harps; maggots are spread out beneath you and worms cover you. (NIV)
“I guess some could argue it's just a figure of speech…”

Speaking in this section (v1-11) speaking of the fall of the king of Babylon we read v8-11 in the context that the king is no longer a threat or a source of bondage to Israel; v4-6 suggests that he will be spending time on the “sad side” of the grave…

-8- Indeed the cypress trees rejoice over you, And the cedars of Lebanon, Saying, 'Since you were cut down, No woodsman has come up against us.'
Trees are inanimate objects, I would call this one figurative.
-9- "Hell from beneath is excited about you, To meet you at your coming; It stirs up the dead for you, All the chief ones of the earth; It has raised up from their thrones All the kings of the nations.
Hell, & from the supposed interpretation of the Rich Man & Lazarus we are talking about the fiery side of the grave (acknowledging the kings wickedness), is not a conscious entity – it is a place, it doesn’t get excited, it doesn’t literally meet the wicked dead, it doesn’t stir up anything. Again from the interpretation of the Rich Man & Lazarus the wicked dead are in torment & fire, they are not sitting on thrones. I would call this one definitely figurative.
-10- They all shall speak and say to you: 'Have you also become as weak as we? Have you become like us?
In context this does refer to the kings of the nations speaking but is it figurative or literal?
-11- Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, And the sound of your stringed instruments; The maggot is spread under you, And worms cover you.'
A continuation from v10 and the kings still speaking to the newly arrived king of Babylon… the king is now in torment and fire – does he get a throne? Does he bring down any pomp or stringed instruments? No. This is figurative. Using the imagery of a bed v11 concludes with the final bodily condition as it rests in the ground where the worms live, consumed by maggots. Is there literally a “sheet” of maggots and a “covering” of worms for the wicked dead (in a place of fire besides) – no, this is figurative.
If you pick v10 out of its context & hide the surrounding texts you might be able to stretch a literal application but seriously, in context there is no argument regarding whether this is figurative or literal.

real eyes realize

but what if it's not. What if the spirits of the dead really are aware. I'm more convinced of the latter because Christ preached to spirits; what's the use in preaching if they can't hear or think about what you're saying and thus make a decision? It hasn't been quoted yet, so:


1 Peter 3:18-20 (KJV)

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


It seems to suggest that after he was made alive in the Spirit (resurrected?) he went to preach to the imprisoned spirits that were once alive during Noah's time (tangent: that would explain his ghost-like abilities of walking through locked doors, but still having a "solid" body that Thomas could poke and examine in John 20:24-29; I say "solid" because of Luke 24:39). Anyway, those imprisoned spirits lived in the days of Noah, they're dead now/not in a body/not on Earth, in some invisible/spirit realm, and it's to those individuals Jesus preached to. It's necessary to be conscious/aware if you're going to be listening to what is preached. Ergo, there must be awareness beyond this physical, earthly life, in the realm of the dead / of the not resurrected.

It is an interesting passage of scripture but it does require a sensible reading.
I am aware that this is a very popular text and often referred to – that supposedly Jesus during his time in the grave he went & preached to the wicked antediluvians in the grave. To be honest I've never personally looked into the texts but here the need presents itself.

The first thing that comes to mind before even opening up the bible (and we need to go there) is why? Jesus loved all the wicked. We know that after death our fates are sealed – as John 5:19 says “and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Why just to a select group and realistically for what purpose if indeed it referred to the dead?

Upon reading the text intelligently something becomes abundantly clear. This says nothing whatsoever about being woken and preaching while he was in the grave.

V19 simply says he died in the flesh and was quickened, or made alive, in/by/through (depending on your version) the spirit. “…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (2 Corinthians 15:3,4)

V20 doesn’t specify when the preaching was done.
Does the bible here teach a second chance theology as some commentators suggest? Both bible and logic answer with a resounding no!
“And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” (Hebrews 9:27,28 )

It is clear from the writings of Paul that the eternal destiny of man is decided at death.

Logically any such notion would not make sense. Why just to a select group and realistically for what purpose if indeed it referred to the dead? If for conversion purposes and there would be no other reason what kind of success rate do you think He would have? It would be 100%. If someone came to you and said I’m going to give you a second chance at the lotto draw we had last night, what numbers would you pick? Chances of being a winner… 100%. For those in fire & torment, they can see the result of their choices they wouldn’t opt for a drop of water on the tip of a finger would they… and considering Jesus loves everyone (not willing that any should perish but that all might come to repentance) given the opportunity He wouldn’t stop with just those few. If indeed Jesus went to preach to the wicked dead in their supposed current condition the population of those living in hellfire right now would be ZERO.

When did the spirit referred to in v19 preach to the spirits in prison and what prison is he talking about? It is clear that it is referring to the wicked at the time of the preaching of Noah…
What it does say is that it was by the same spirit that raised Jesus. It was done through Noah (a preacher of righteousness – 2Peter 2:5) to those in bondage to Satan.

Genesis 6:3,5 says “-3- And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." -5- Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great In the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of His heart was only evil continually.

And the bible speaks clearly the figurative concept of being bound in prison by sin.

Isaiah 42:6-7 "I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the prison, those who sit in darkness from the prison house.”

Isaiah 61:1- "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; “

Luke 4:18- "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppress…”  

[real eyes realize]

jack0076970

Hey RER, sorry for the apparent delay. I don't like treating any bible discussion lightly - lots of study (lots that I won’t list here yet) besides life stuff in general to deal with…

The discussion doesn't have to be had at such a quick pace; don't feel too pressured. I understand there are more pressing matters in life than this, and at the end of the day, no matter how we interpret this area of scripture, it's not a salvation issue (though it is a fun topic to discuss razz ). However, I don't think there will be much left to discuss after this: ultimately, whether one thinks Lk 16:19-31 is a parable or not will be pivotal in determining how they interpret the rest, including the OT scriptures. There's a lot of overlap whichever interpretation you go (since they both take into account a literal resurrection that awaits both the righteous and the wicked in the future); so it's not going to impact much, if anything at all: the believer reaches the same conclusion either way (that both the righteous and the wicked will be resurrected, but not everyone will have the same destination; those sticking to a Lk 16:19-31 as a description of events that actually transpired, apply the same principle to death: both the righteous and wicked die, but they experience two different things as they wait for the resurrection; what they experience is dependent upon what they did / experienced in life).

jack0076970

What about the 3rd point assuming it is from the perspective of the living. The bible doesn’t say that this is the case for the “typical” dead person. It simply says the dead.
It’s true that a great many people are forgotten & nameless (at least from human perspective) – you only have to do some family history research to see how true that is. On my mother’s side, so the story goes, she had ancestors with titles (a baron & baroness) in the courts of King Louis 16 of France at the end of the 18th century who fled to Ireland about the time things were going bad for the king. The next records we have are of (likely) their grandson Patrick & his 2 daughters born in Ireland (1830’s early 40s), married in England (early 1860s) but nothing else of their families inbetween thanks to the destruction of the Irish census records in 1922. To all intents and purposes those others have been forgotten… but what about the 100s of millions of those who haven’t been forgotten & whose records exist? Some families trace back quite some distance - (interesting family tree article).

Given enough time they will be forgotten, especially when the earth passes away/flees and he creates a new earth. All of those material things would've been destroyed. But even before then, they were forgotten, hence why a person needs to look back at those records to remember them. All memory of them was forgotten; they totally left their minds.

jack0076970

What about the bible characters whose records date back to Adam & Eve no less?

That's why I said the typical person; it's the only interpretation that makes sense, even if you're looking at it from the perspective of people being unconscious in the realm of the dead. People forget about you; all memories of you forgotten, even if there is data about you somewhere. Just like there were periods where God was forgotten, nobody sought him, despite the law and the prophets being written down (Judges 8:34). The fact that a priest had to "finally find" the book of the law is very telling of just how much they, as a nation, had forgotten God (2 Kings 22:8-13). Our Heavenly Father who is immortal, and whose words won't pass away even when heaven and earth will pass away (Mark 13:31), is still forgotten by living people.

jack0076970

Even if you look at the language of v5 – some translations state “and even their name is forgotten”(NIV) (or to that effect) yet others again like the KJV state “for the memory of them is forgotten” – the latter is a more accurate translation given the context and original language. It is not that the dead no nothing or have no more reward because someone else has forgotten them – that reading doesn’t make sense - but simply that they have no memory and therefore can’t.

That wasn't the point I made: You, yourself, can't earn any more rewards because you're not on earth to accomplish anything new; you no longer participate in anything new under the sun and can't be earning new trophies, titles, or what have you. No more earthly accolades for you personally; sure, you can have an estate acting on behalf of you, but it's not you anymore that is personally earning those rewards. Whether people remember you or not, it's not you earning them.

jack0076970

Just for clarity the term to be brought low doesn’t refer to the death of his children so it is not as though their “spirits” or “souls” are meeting. When I first read v20 & 21 in the context of v20 I immediately thought of the funeral service – to honour someone in their death is something we do when we attend their funeral and to be brought low again in context is to be sorrowful, to be grieved - by their passing.

When you look however at the different translations (and the original language) another meaning presents itself. Other translations reword “brought low” to “become unimportant”, “become insignificant” or “dishonour”. In that context then and acknowledging that v20 doesn’t actually refer to any honour at a funeral service.

I was making a reference to them (A.) visiting the grave-site like on the anniversary of their father's death or (B.) his sons actually dying and having their physical remains boxed up next to each other in an ossuary. Thank you, though, for clarifying that it doesn't necessarily mean his sons have died. It could mean his sons were humbled for doing wrong and their father is not aware of that happening since it's happening in the realm of the living (and nothing that happens on earth after his death will be brought to his attention, unless there's some kind of divine intervention, but that doesn't seem to be the natural order of things; even the souls of the martyred dead in Revelation 6:9-11 are totally wrapped up in themselves, their own blood being avenged; however they do seem to know that vengeance hasn't been carried out for them yet and that the wicked who did this to them are still alive question . So again, more evidence that souls are aware, though bodies are not).

jack0076970

Something that is important to note is that in all these texts there is no distinction made between the righteous and wicked dead which does raise a serious contradiction if the story of Lazarus & the Rich Man are to be taken literally and in part the problem is that the story Jesus told is so often assumed to be a such and an entire state of the dead theology is built up on what was intended to be a parable.

Job clearly states that a man doesn’t know what happens to his children after he dies or anything else for that matter– in your own words they are “clueless to what’s happening on earth”. How can the rich man be concerned about his brothers when Job clearly states that a man knows nothing of their condition… in fact he knows nothing of what is taking place upon the earth.

Simple: there is no distinction between the wicked and the righteous because death is the same fate that awaited everyone; wicked or righteous, male or female, king or peasant, from the perspective of the living, they met the same end (physical death).

As for the second apparent contradiction: just like a dead father cannot be aware of anything new that happens to his sons after he dies, neither does the rich man know of anything new. The rich man is not receiving new information concerning his family after his death. He already knew full well the kind of life they led on earth; more likely than not, they too ignored Lazarus and other poor people like him, despite living in luxury every day (and thus having more than they needed every day; they could've spared something, but they didn't even spare scraps). The implication here is that his brothers were exactly like him, stingy and uncompassionate, and needed warning. He's assuming they're going to continue living as they were; he has no other choice but to assume this since he can't exactly see if his death caused anyone to repent and re-prioritize what's important in life, nor see if his death drove any of his brothers to seek a priest for spiritual advisement (and the priest was responsible for teaching people the Torah at the time, i.e. Malachi 2:7).

jack0076970

Given this then if v22 is to be taken literally it contradicts both itself and reason. There in two parts are the division of body and soul.
The body in pain, and the soul mourning yet the body of itself is nothing as you’ve rightly said, the body is just a body – as Solomon says the body returns to dust and the spirit (or breath) to God who gave it. “Shall have pain” – is to be sore, to be grieved, afflicted, sad. This is figurative speech. The “soul” (wicked or righteous) knows nothing of what happens on the earth which includes the body – if the grave or Sheol and the tomb are distinct then for what does the soul mourn? Again this is figurative. Translated in both spirit & letter “But over him his flesh shall grieve; And over him his breath shall mourn.” When God created man He “… formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:7)

In harmony Clarke’s commentary notes the following
"In the daring spirit of oriental poetry," says he, "the flesh, or body, and the breath, are made conscious beings; the former lamenting its putrefaction in the grave, the latter mourning over the mouldering clay which it once enlivened."
Job in v22 concludes his discourse on the miserable condition of earthly man and his end result. On a side note I say earthly because even within his despondent prayer (he is in a miserable condition after all and doesn’t really understand why) which begins in v20 of the preceding chapter, he speaks of the hope that he has at Jesus second coming and in v16,17 is aware of God’s grace and righteousness –again aside Job declares in c21 v8-12
-8- "Look, I go forward, but He is not there, And backward, but I cannot perceive Him;
-9- When He works on the left hand, I cannot behold Him; When He turns to the right hand, I cannot see Him.
-10- But He knows the way that I take; When He has tested me, I shall come forth as gold.
-11- My foot has held fast to His steps; I have kept His way and not turned aside.
-12- I have not departed from the commandment of His lips; I have treasured the words of His mouth More than my necessary food.
Scattered throughout Job are glimmers of hope & trust despite his despair over his condition but again that is aside.

That's perfectly fine for a figurative description of the physical flesh; the prophets would apply the same kind of expression to the land after the aftermath of destruction/war (the buildings and trees knocked-down / it's in a deteriorated state, the land grieves i.e. Joel 1:10; ), which is what the first half of v. 22 in Job 14 covers. But that doesn't take into account the soul grieving (the second half of that verse).

Clearly, the rich man still feels in the realm of the dead, he lifts up his "eyes" in the grave, not with his physical body, but the soul (and the breath has already returned to the Father); it's not referring to the breath. God breathes into your body to animate you; the spirit is that breath, not the soul. The rich man is not wearing a physical body at that point, he has departed from that carcass, the angels carried him away to someplace, so it's referring to something else (and Paul, in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, suggests we're composed of three parts: body, soul, spirit); the body gets entombed/disposed of, the breath/spirit goes back to the Father who gave it, so by process of elimination, that leaves the soul; the soul is what goes to the realm of the dead. That's the psyche, the mind, your thoughts.

jack0076970

Speaking in this section (v1-11) speaking of the fall of the king of Babylon we read v8-11 in the context that the king is no longer a threat or a source of bondage to Israel; v4-6 suggests that he will be spending time on the “sad side” of the grave…

-8- Indeed the cypress trees rejoice over you, And the cedars of Lebanon, Saying, 'Since you were cut down, No woodsman has come up against us.'
Trees are inanimate objects, I would call this one figurative.
-9- "Hell from beneath is excited about you, To meet you at your coming; It stirs up the dead for you, All the chief ones of the earth; It has raised up from their thrones All the kings of the nations.
Hell, & from the supposed interpretation of the Rich Man & Lazarus we are talking about the fiery side of the grave (acknowledging the kings wickedness), is not a conscious entity – it is a place, it doesn’t get excited, it doesn’t literally meet the wicked dead, it doesn’t stir up anything. Again from the interpretation of the Rich Man & Lazarus the wicked dead are in torment & fire, they are not sitting on thrones. I would call this one definitely figurative.
-10- They all shall speak and say to you: 'Have you also become as weak as we? Have you become like us?
In context this does refer to the kings of the nations speaking but is it figurative or literal?
-11- Your pomp is brought down to Sheol, And the sound of your stringed instruments; The maggot is spread under you, And worms cover you.'
A continuation from v10 and the kings still speaking to the newly arrived king of Babylon… the king is now in torment and fire – does he get a throne? Does he bring down any pomp or stringed instruments? No. This is figurative. Using the imagery of a bed v11 concludes with the final bodily condition as it rests in the ground where the worms live, consumed by maggots. Is there literally a “sheet” of maggots and a “covering” of worms for the wicked dead (in a place of fire besides) – no, this is figurative.
If you pick v10 out of its context & hide the surrounding texts you might be able to stretch a literal application but seriously, in context there is no argument regarding whether this is figurative or literal.

We don't know what the rest of Sheol looks like on that torturous side; there could be maggots and worms, not just fire, but from what it sounds like, the torture is tailor-fit to you, how you treated people in life. You were prideful in life, now you'll be humbled to the level of a maggot and thus be surrounded by them. You didn't clothe the naked nor feed them, now you'll burn with heat (as naked people do under the sun) and have your thirst unquenched (just like the poor go insatiated). I think scripture has both literal and figurative applications. Certain events happened literally and they do teach figurative lessons on top of that, but that literal layer, no matter how incredible it sounds, is still there.

The whole reason why Lazarus and the Rich Man is so controversial is precisely because there is not sufficient evidence to suggest it is a parable (for one, the fact that Jesus doesn't say it's a parable, unlike the other instances where he says he's about to tell us a parable; secondly, it doesn't share the common traits of a parable [using an earthly, common day example as an analogy to explain a spiritual truth i.e. planting and harvesting to explain making disciples and storing away in safety those who come to spiritual maturity, who develop righteousness under his guidance/care/instruction]; plus, if it's a parable, than Abraham didn't actually say any of those things in death, thus making Jesus a liar when he says "Abraham said/replied" such-and-such; what is the analogy being made in order for this to be a parable?).

Another point: for argument's sake, let's say the OT verses are strictly speaking on a figurative layer of intepretation; that doesn't mean there must be a contradiction when the new testament reveals a different plane of existence for the soul: Yes, the body decays, but the soul goes somewhere; the angels carry you away. Again, the soul was given a body formed from the dust; said body is infused with breath to animate it; upon death, the breath goes back to the Father, the body goes into the ground from where it came from, but the soul is carried away to some place else by the angels, and thus we have Lazarus, Abraham, and the Rich man, feeling, communicating, aware, after death. All figurative descriptions of the decaying body still apply.

jack0076970

It is an interesting passage of scripture but it does require a sensible reading.
I am aware that this is a very popular text and often referred to – that supposedly Jesus during his time in the grave he went & preached to the wicked antediluvians in the grave. To be honest I've never personally looked into the texts but here the need presents itself.

The first thing that comes to mind before even opening up the bible (and we need to go there) is why? Jesus loved all the wicked. We know that after death our fates are sealed – as John 5:19 says “and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” Why just to a select group and realistically for what purpose if indeed it referred to the dead?

Upon reading the text intelligently something becomes abundantly clear. This says nothing whatsoever about being woken and preaching while he was in the grave.

V19 simply says he died in the flesh and was quickened, or made alive, in/by/through (depending on your version) the spirit. “…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (2 Corinthians 15:3,4)

V20 doesn’t specify when the preaching was done.
Does the bible here teach a second chance theology as some commentators suggest? Both bible and logic answer with a resounding no!
“And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” (Hebrews 9:27,28 )

It is clear from the writings of Paul that the eternal destiny of man is decided at death.

Logically any such notion would not make sense. Why just to a select group and realistically for what purpose if indeed it referred to the dead? If for conversion purposes and there would be no other reason what kind of success rate do you think He would have? It would be 100%. If someone came to you and said I’m going to give you a second chance at the lotto draw we had last night, what numbers would you pick? Chances of being a winner… 100%. For those in fire & torment, they can see the result of their choices they wouldn’t opt for a drop of water on the tip of a finger would they… and considering Jesus loves everyone (not willing that any should perish but that all might come to repentance) given the opportunity He wouldn’t stop with just those few. If indeed Jesus went to preach to the wicked dead in their supposed current condition the population of those living in hellfire right now would be ZERO.

When did the spirit referred to in v19 preach to the spirits in prison and what prison is he talking about? It is clear that it is referring to the wicked at the time of the preaching of Noah…
What it does say is that it was by the same spirit that raised Jesus. It was done through Noah (a preacher of righteousness – 2Peter 2:5) to those in bondage to Satan.

Genesis 6:3,5 says “-3- And the LORD said, "My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years." -5- Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great In the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of His heart was only evil continually.

And the bible speaks clearly the figurative concept of being bound in prison by sin.

Isaiah 42:6-7 "I, the LORD, have called You in righteousness, And will hold Your hand; I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the Gentiles, to open blind eyes, to bring out prisoners from the prison, those who sit in darkness from the prison house.”

Isaiah 61:1- "The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To preach good tidings to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And the opening of the prison to those who are bound; “

Luke 4:18- "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppress…”

Well, I did suggest he went to preach to spirits after his resurrection, not while he was in the grave. Even though you're taking the discussion on another point I didn't venture in, I do thank you for going there, as it is beneficial for whoever is reading to see how it applies to living people and see how sin is likened to imprisonment. That is a good point to make.

However, even if you're taking the discussion along another point, you're making some assumptions: that these are human spirits; they could be the spirits of fallen angels / nephilim or their offspring who were around in Noah's time and acted wickedly. It's not the offsprings' fault that their parents acted wickedly, and that they came about through an unlawful union; maybe the preaching for salvation is for them? We are told he is reconciling everything, whether on earth or in heaven, to himself through his blood (Colossians 1:20); whether or not that includes the original angels who disobeyed, I'm not so sure because of Jude 1:6, but their offspring could be another matter entirely.

The second assumption is that the preaching he proclaimed was for salvation at all. Jesus could've gone to the disobedient angels to proclaim his victory over them and whatever corruption they intended by mingling with humans during Noah's time. They clearly knew it was wrong. They were not respecting our Heavenly Father by doing so; and if they were aware of the prophecies (seeing as angels deliver the word of God to people, as is explicitly implied in Revelation 22:9, but also we have the famous Gabriel in Daniel 9:21-23 and Luke 1:19 explaining and delivering prophecy), then these angels would have known that the Messiah's bloodline had to be kept pure; they wouldn't jeopardize that by muddying up the bloodlines with their DNA if they were acting obediently. That sounds nefarious to beginwith. All the more reason to suspect that they were trying to prevent prophecy from fulfilling and all the more reason to go proclaim his victory to them after he resurrected, "FYI: you guys failed; I was born pure without defect or sin, I died, I resurrected, I win".

I know commentaries like to ascribe that to freeing humans from their sins; but it makes more sense if it's not referring to the human spirits of the time, but the fallen angels (proclaiming victory over their wicked attempts to stop our salvation from happening) or it could be referring to Jesus going to the spirits of their offspring (offering salvation to them seeing as they weren't under any covenant? they weren't sons and daughters of Adam, but of angels, so where do they fall?).  

[Islamic Teacher]

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.
Quran 4:157  

[jack0076970]

Thanks RER - no it's not a salvation issue & it is great to discuss - it drives us to study like we probably would never otherwise.

One of the reasons I chose this guild out of all the other bible ones is that this seems to have the most real bible discussions happening and it's great! No offence to the others... this is definitely the more challenging & focused and spending time on the religion & morality sub-forum seems to be waste of time more often than not.

real eyes realize

Well, I did suggest he went to preach to spirits after his resurrection, not while he was in the grave. Even though you're taking the discussion on another point I didn't venture in, I do thank you for going there, as it is beneficial for whoever is reading to see how it applies to living people and see how sin is likened to imprisonment. That is a good point to make.

However, even if you're taking the discussion along another point, you're making some assumptions: that these are human spirits; they could be the spirits of fallen angels / nephilim or their offspring who were around in Noah's time and acted wickedly. It's not the offsprings' fault that their parents acted wickedly, and that they came about through an unlawful union; maybe the preaching for salvation is for them? We are told he is reconciling everything, whether on earth or in heaven, to himself through his blood (Colossians 1:20); whether or not that includes the original angels who disobeyed, I'm not so sure because of Jude 1:6, but their offspring could be another matter entirely.

The second assumption is that the preaching he proclaimed was for salvation at all. Jesus could've gone to the disobedient angels to proclaim his victory over them and whatever corruption they intended by mingling with humans during Noah's time. They clearly knew it was wrong. They were not respecting our Heavenly Father by doing so; and if they were aware of the prophecies (seeing as angels deliver the word of God to people, as is explicitly implied in Revelation 22:9, but also we have the famous Gabriel in Daniel 9:21-23 and Luke 1:19 explaining and delivering prophecy), then these angels would have known that the Messiah's bloodline had to be kept pure; they wouldn't jeopardize that by muddying up the bloodlines with their DNA if they were acting obediently. That sounds nefarious to beginwith. All the more reason to suspect that they were trying to prevent prophecy from fulfilling and all the more reason to go proclaim his victory to them after he resurrected, "FYI: you guys failed; I was born pure without defect or sin, I died, I resurrected, I win".

I know commentaries like to ascribe that to freeing humans from their sins; but it makes more sense if it's not referring to the human spirits of the time, but the fallen angels (proclaiming victory over their wicked attempts to stop our salvation from happening) or it could be referring to Jesus going to the spirits of their offspring (offering salvation to them seeing as they weren't under any covenant? they weren't sons and daughters of Adam, but of angels, so where do they fall?).

My apologies, yes you did say after. In all my readings on the passage the commonly held time-frame for the visit was during his time in the grave besides the remainder of the gospel/acts accounts only mentions his either going to His Father or spending time with His disciples & others - I carried it on here so sorry about that.

Out of curiosity, where does the suggestion come from that they could be fallen angels as opposed to men?  

[real eyes realize]

jack0076970

Out of curiosity, where does the suggestion come from that they could be fallen angels as opposed to men?

That's just a thought that occurred to me. The fallen angels, their disobedience, and the wickedness in Noah's time are all described in Genesis 6 together (and it almost seems to imply that it's because of these fallen entities that humanity got worse; at the very least, their arrival on earth and having children with human women coincides with the time that humans became more evil and violent). The only "special case" I could see, if we're going with preaching during the grave, are these fallen entities or their offspring. They're not under any covenant and thus have no promise of redemption.

I'm not negating the possibility of Jesus going to humans that weren't discipled yet and thus liberating them from their sins by preaching to them after his resurrection, but there's also the possibility that verse 20 is referring to the disobedient fallen angels or their offspring (which could be considered as "disobedient spirits" as well, who were around on the earth in Noah's time while he was building the ark). It's possible Jesus could've done this after his resurrection. That, coupled with those other verses that I cited, led to that suggestion. I don't think it ever explicitly identifies outright that it must be referring to fallen angels or nephilim (but then again, it doesn't identify it as human either for that matter, hence the speculation on my end).  

[jack0076970]

real eyes realize

jack0076970

Out of curiosity, where does the suggestion come from that they could be fallen angels as opposed to men?

That's just a thought that occurred to me. The fallen angels, their disobedience, and the wickedness in Noah's time are all described in Genesis 6 together (and it almost seems to imply that it's because of these fallen entities that humanity got worse; at the very least, their arrival on earth and having children with human women coincides with the time that humans became more evil and violent). The only "special case" I could see, if we're going with preaching during the grave, are these fallen entities or their offspring. They're not under any covenant and thus have no promise of redemption.

I'm not negating the possibility of Jesus going to humans that weren't discipled yet and thus liberating them from their sins by preaching to them after his resurrection, but there's also the possibility that verse 20 is referring to the disobedient fallen angels or their offspring (which could be considered as "disobedient spirits" as well, who were around on the earth in Noah's time while he was building the ark). It's possible Jesus could've done this after his resurrection. That, coupled with those other verses that I cited, led to that suggestion. I don't think it ever explicitly identifies outright that it must be referring to fallen angels or nephilim (but then again, it doesn't identify it as human either for that matter, hence the speculation on my end).

Thanks for the notes - was trying to get the kids moving for the day before. As far as I can see looking up there are only 2 references to Nephilim in the bible but just about to start work now so I'll have to have a read later.