Hades
Luke 16 "so clearly teaches the orthodox doctrine of eternal punishment that the opponents of the doctrine are hard pressed to know what to do with it." (Buis)

Exposition of Luke 16:19-31
The place where departed conscious spirits of the dead await judgment.
click here for detailed outline on Hades

See what early Christians said about Hades

Interpretation/view

Who believes this view?

The Bible Truth!
Word Picture, pre-resurrection, view
Click here

Bible Believers! The "Anti-Neo-Sadduceeian" position proven at this website (www.bible.ca)

Literal, pre-resurrection, view
Click here

Many churches that are "Anti-Neo-Sadduceeian"

The Fable View
Click here

Most Arians: Jehovah Witness, Christadelphian, Seventh-day Adventist

Literal, post resurrection, view
Click here

Neo-Sadduceeian: Herbert W. Armstrong and most modern splinter groups

See what early Christians said about Hades

Bible Truth

The Word Picture, pre-resurrection, view
The truth in the Bible and the interpretation proven at this website (www.bible.ca)

Lk 16:
While body and soul are united within human realm

Lk 16:
While body and soul are separated in the spirit world

Jehovah God

These literal items are describe in literal terms because they are within human experience

These literal items are symbolic word pictures because they are outside human experience.

The descriptions of God in these literal ways are symbolic word pictures because they are outside human experience.

purple, fine linen
gaily living in splendor
died and buried
gate
crumbs
table
dogs licking sores

Abraham's bosom
eyes
torment
tip of his finger
water
tongue
flame
great chasm fixed

God's hands, ears, face: Isa 59:1-2; arms: Ex. 6:6
God's eyes, ears, heart: 2 Chr 7:15-16
breath of His mouth: Ps 33:6
wings Ps 36:7
breasts, womb: Deut 32:18; Isa 66:7-13

These items literally exist and are described how they really are.

These items literally exist, but are described in the same kind of symbolic word pictures as Jehovah God is described.

God doesn't have literal hands and eyes any more than the fire or water in Luke 16 are literal. But they do describe something that really exists.

If Arians argue that the usage of symbolic word pictures in Luke 16 proves that there is no real place where the dead actually consciously exist, then by the same logic, Jehovah Himself, doesn't exist! The use of symbolism doesn't mean there is nothing real and literal beneath the word picture! The fact that God is described in anthropomorphisms is powerful evidence that other aspects of the spirit world like Hades in Luke 16 is also described in anthropomorphisms.

Defining fables, Myths and parables

Fable:

R.C. Trench in The Parables of the Lord says, "The parable is constructed to set forth a spiritual truth; while the fable is essentially of the earth, and never lifts itself above the earth. The fable just reaches that pitch of morality which the world will understand an approve...The parable differs from the fable, by moving in the spiritual world, and never transgressing the actual order of natural things." Fables teach human wisdom through fairy-tale like stories with speaking trees and animals. Parables teach divine wisdom through realistic, true to life stories.

1. See Judges 9:8-15; 2 Chronicles 25:17-19 for the only two examples of fables in the Bible.
2. Arians like Jehovah Witnesses call Luke 16 a parable, but in reality they actually they view it as a fable. But why would Jesus use "Jewish fables" and "Pagan false doctrine" in the core of His teaching? Such is condemned in: (examples for use of "fable" in Greek): Tit. 1:14; 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; of fiction, in 2 Pet. 1:16)

Myth:

Trench: "The mythical narrative presents itself not merely as the vehicle of the truth, but as being itself the truth: while in the parable we see the perfect distinction between form and essence, shell and kernel"

1. The myth unconsciously mixes the symbol with the deeper meaning, the parable keeps the two separate. A myth claims to be the truth itself, not a vehicle for truth like parables do. Myths confuse fantasy and reality.
2. Modernists view the creation story, miracles and the resurrection of Christ as mythical fantasy stories.
3. Arians accuse those who take Luke 16 to be a true story as believing in a myth. Arians believe the dead are extinct and cannot talk at all. So when Bible believers look to Luke 16 as solid Bible proof that the dead are not extinct, they accuse us of making the "obviously impossible, untrue and fantasy" into the real. Hence they accuse Christians who accept Luke 16 at face value as believing in a myth.

Fable Vs Parable

Fables are knowingly untrue, unrealistic fantasy stories that illustrate previously discovered human wisdom.

Parables are true or realistic stories that illustrate a deep spiritual truth not previously understood by man.

If Luke 16 is a Fable, as Arians believe, than they must explain why Jesus would use "pagan false doctrine" and confirm the "Jewish majority view" of the day held by Pharisees. The Sadducees believed in extinction at death just like modern Arians. In fact these two Jewish groups opposed each other on their view of life after death! It is impossible to comprehend why, if Jesus viewed the dead became "non-existent", would borrow from the very sect that taught the false view of the dead!

Myth Vs Parable

Myths are fantasy/untrue stories that are accepted as reality/truth themselves.

Parables clearly divide between the story part and the spiritual lesson being taught.

Arians would accuse our view of Luke 16 at this website as being a Myth. They would observe that Luke 16 is actually a Fable, not to be accepted as truth. Because we accept what Arians call "fantasy" as real truth, they would logically think we have accepted a Myth. But our view of Luke 16 is not that it is Myth, but a true story that really happened!

take literally

take symbolically
(anthropomorphism)

reject existence

GOD
God has hands, ears, face: Isa 59:1-2
God has wings Ps 36:7

God has literal flesh and bone body with wings

God exists in the otherwise indescribable spirit world and is therefore described in symbolic terms humans can relate to.

Because God is described in non-literal language God doesn't exist

HELL
The wicked will be cast into the garbage dump of Jerusalem (Gehenna) which is also described as a lake of fire

The wicked will be burned up with literal fire, in a literal lake of fire in the literal Jerusalem city dump

A literal lake of fire and a literal city dump are two irreconcilably contradictory concepts if taken literally. They are therefore word pictures and symbolic language used to express what is otherwise indescribable since Hell is in the spirit world and is therefore described in symbolic terms humans can relate to.

Because the destruction of the wicked is described in non-literal language there will be no actual destruction of the wicked.

HADES
There is fire, water, tongues, fingers and pain in Hades

There is literal fire and fingers in Hades

Hades is in the otherwise indescribable spirit world and is therefore described in symbolic terms humans can relate to.

Neo-Sadduceeian Logic:
Because Hades is described in non-literal language Hades doesn't exist as an actual place where departed spirits consciously await judgement

If Arians reject Hades in Luke 16 as a real place of consciousness for the dead because it is described in symbolic language, then they must also reject that God or Hell exists too!

The Literal, pre-resurrection view

Taught by many mainline Anti-Neo-Sadduceeian churches

The Fable View
(Neo-Sadduceeism)

Taught by Jehovah's Witness, Christadelphian, Seventh-day Adventist

Christadelphian

View #1: Roberts, Christendom Astray
It was addressed to the Pharisees to enforce the lesson that in due time the mighty and rich would be brought down, and the poor exalted; and that if men would not be led by the testimony of Moses and the prophets, miracles (even the raising of the dead) would fail to move them. (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, Robert Roberts, p35)

View #2: Able, Wrested Scriptures
The parable condemns Caiaphas the chief Shepherd of Israel for his selfish irresponsibility in neglecting the spiritual and material needs of Jews in Israel. Lazarus represents this neglected class. The parable is a further indictment of the Sadducees (who denied the resurrection of the body and were about to reject the miraculous resurrection of Lazarus) in their disbelief of Moses and the prophets. (Christadelphian handbook: Wrested Scriptures, Ron Able, Luke 16)

Seventh-day Adventist

View #1: Bacchiocchi:
"the main lesson of the parable, namely, nothing or no one can supersede the convicting power of the revelation that God has given us in His Word." (Immortality or Resurrection?, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist, Ch 5: State of the Dead)

View #2: Crews:
"The Jewish nation was clearly represented by this character. By contrast, Lazarus symbolized all those people in spiritual poverty--the Gentiles--with whom the Israelites were to share their heritage." (The rich man and Lazarus, Dennis Crews, Amazing Facts, SDA)

Jehovah's Witness

1. "a reversal in the spiritual status or condition of those represented by Lazarus and the rich main are evidently indicated. The fact that the rich man's brothers rejected Moses and the prophets also shows that the illustration had a deeper meaning and purpose than that of contrasting poverty and the possession of riches." (Jw's, Aid to Bible understanding, Lazarus, p1048)
2. Fire is used in God's Word to describe his fiery judgment messages, and the work done by God's prophets in declaring his judgments is said to 'torment' those who oppose God and his servants. (Jw's, Aid to Bible understanding, Illustrations, p818)
3. "the rich man represents the ultra-selfish class of the clergy of Christendom, who are now afar off from God and dead to his favor and service and tormented by the Kingdom truth proclaimed. Lazarus depicts the faithful remnant of the body of Christ. These, on being delivered from modern Babylon since 1919, receive God's favor, pictured by the bosom position of Abraham. and are comforted through his Word." (Let God Be True, Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., 1946, p. 79.)

Rich man

Lazarus

7th-day Adventist #1 and Russelites/ Pyramidologists known as "Bible students"

Jews

Gentiles

7th-day Adventist #2

a fictitious rich man

a fictitious man named Lazarus

Christadelphian #1

Rich

Poor

Christadelphian #2

Literally Caiaphas who symbolized High Priestly class of Sadducees

Literally Lazarus who symbolized underclass Jews and the "Gentile dogs"

Jehovah's Witness

Any Christian who opposes Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah's witnesses

(The rich man and Lazarus, Dennis Crews, Amazing Facts, SDA)

Who was the symbolic rich man? The Jews had been blessed above measure by a knowledge of God and his plan of salvation for all mankind. ... Only a Jew would pray to "Father Abraham," as we find the rich man doing later in the story. The Jewish nation was clearly represented by this character. (The rich man and Lazarus, Dennis Crews, Amazing Facts, SDA)

Giving Luke 16 a "parabolic interpretation" does not explain why Jesus would use Jewish Fables and Pagan false doctrine in the core of his teaching regarding spiritual matters that man cannot discern apart from God telling us.

By contrast, Lazarus symbolized all those people in spiritual poverty--the Gentiles--with whom the Israelites were to share their heritage. (The rich man and Lazarus, Dennis Crews, Amazing Facts, SDA)

This we reject as being even possible! If "only a Jew" would say "Father Abraham", then obviously only a Jew would snuggle Abraham. To suggest that Jesus was teaching that the Gentiles could be saved, when it was news to Peter in Acts 10 some 5 years later proves that if this is the meaning of Luke 16, not even Jesus closest spiritual disciples understood it.

Unfortunately, the Jews had not shared their spiritual wealth with the Gentiles at all. Instead, they considered them as "dogs" who would have to be satisfied with the spiritual crumbs falling from their masters' tables. The metaphor was known. Jesus had used it before, testing the faith of the Canaanite woman, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." She responded accordingly: "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' tables." Mt 15:26, 27. (The rich man and Lazarus, Dennis Crews, Amazing Facts, SDA)

The problem with making this connection is that there are dogs in both Luke 16 and Mt 15:26, except they represent two different things. In Mt, the dogs do represent the Gentiles but in Lk 16 Lazarus was being licked by dogs. So is this Gentiles helping Gentiles? Such wild interpretations are obviously wrong on every count!

Jesus was not trying to explain the physical realities of the afterlife. Instead, He was referring to the unfaithfulness of the Jews regarding their assigned responsibility. As stewards of the special message of truth, they utterly failed to share it with the Gentiles, who were eager to hear it. (The rich man and Lazarus, Dennis Crews, Amazing Facts, SDA)

A simple reading of the rich man and Lazarus will show the nonsense of such a statement. Crews is arguing that all the intimate detail in the story MEANS NOTHING of what it appears to. Further Crews says that the meaning is not directly IN THE STORY but must be gleaned by the larger context. We will accept that Crews interpretation of Luke 16 has nothing at all to do with what the text ACTUALLY SAYS!

.

Christadelphian view #1 (Total fable view)
(Christendom Astray)

Christadelphian view #2 (Literal fable/allegory view)
(Wrested Scriptures)

It is literal?

No: Non-Literal
"If we insist upon the story as a literal narrative, we are committed to all these particulars"

Yes: Literal
"Lazarus must have been known to the audience" and the rich man is "Caiaphas, the Sadduceean High Priest"

Pharisees or Sadducees?

Directed to Pharisees

Cannot be directed to Pharisees, but to the Sadducees

Why Did Jesus use pagan false doctrine and Jewish fables in Luke 16?

"That the dead should speak was necessary for the purpose of the parable, and it would not surprise the Pharisees to whom it was addressed. For, in fact, it embodies their belief."

1. Jesus used "Beelzebub", was pagan false doctrine, since the person of the Devil doesn't really exist.
2. God used a fable in Judges 9:7-15

Luke 16

Literal Foundation of allegory

Allegorical application

Rich Man

a Sadducee named Caiaphas

High Priestly class of Sadducees

Lazarus

Perhaps even the same man Jesus raised in Jn 11

"Lazarus class" typical of all Jews of this day and the "Gentile dogs" of Matt. 15:27

Introduction:

This view takes the rich man and Lazarus as literal until the two men die when the events pass into the realm of Jewish myth. In fact this view is almost identical to our true view, with the exception that we believe that the conversations after death were real, or at least typical whereas Christadelphians reject all possibility of any consciousness in hades.

verse

Christadelphian handbook: Wrested Scriptures, Ron Able, Luke 16

v 19

"Which was clothed" Only one class in Israel was habitually clothed in purple and linen and fared sumptuously every day---the High Priestly class of Sadducees. Caiaphas is likely the unnamed (for obvious reasons) rich man. At the time of Jesus the Sadducees had much political power derived from their wealth, office and political connections. They were unpopular with the public because of their avaricious spirit.

v 20

Lazarus is the only character personally named in the parables of Jesus, implying that Lazarus must have been known to the audience. This parable of Jesus might have been uttered after he received news of the death of his friend, Lazarus. The parable was given at Pereae, east of the Jordan at Bethabara (where news of Lazarus' death came to him, John 11:6 cf. John 10:40; 1:28). It was an easy day's journey from Bethabara to Bethany.

v 21

Lazarus was typical of all Jews of this day. They were deprived of even the most meager crumbs of the bread of life from the rich man's table. (i.e., High Priestly class, but Caiaphas in particular). However much Lazarus might patiently await the rich man's (Caiaphas) condescension, the High Priest was incapable of dispensing even spiritual crumbs." The Lazarus class was like the Gentile dogs who hoped for crumbs from their Master's table. (Matt. 15:27).

The story continues with the two literal characters in Hades, except now the events are fable, mythical and fantasy. The Christadelphians reject that such is even possible, for they view the dead literally as extinct. [www.bible.ca comment]

v 22

Lazarus dies and in the parable, the premature death of Caiaphas is made to follow.

v 23-31

In hades they meet but in situations reversed. Caiaphas requests Abraham ... to warn his five brothers.

v27-31

The five brothers are the five brothers-in-law of Caiaphas, the Sadduceean High Priest. Josephus records, "Now the report goes, that this elder Ananus [Annas] proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. . ." Antiquities, Book 20, chapter 9, section i, p. 423. Elsewhere, Josephus gives the names of Annas' five sons as Eleasar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and the younger Annas. Caiaphas was son-in-law of Annas who had been deposed by the Romans for openly resisting them.

v27-31

The request is refused on the grounds that they had not heard Moses and the Prophets (e.g. in their attitude to adultery and resurrection, Luke 16:18; 20: 27-38) nor would they respond if one rose from the dead. The resurrection of Lazarus further incensed the Pharisees, chief priests and Caiaphas who feared their loss of power. (Jn. 11:47- 57).

This wild interpretation has been awarded the S.T.I.N.C.S. trophy

1. In the ultimate deception and act of blindness they say, "Jesus would never use Jewish and Pagan false teaching" in this story! We agree! Jesus accurately described the conscious state of the dead.
2. Jehovah's Witnesses are deluded into thinking that just because the statement is made: "Jesus would never teach Pagan false doctrine" that it eliminates the whole problem that all Arians have with Luke 16! They fail to notice that all other Arians have taken the intellectually honourable (but difficult) view that Jesus based the story upon Jewish myth and pagan false doctrine of the day. Jw's realized that either way, great damage would be done to their false doctrine, so they invented this view!
3. So the refutation of this view is to ask them the question: "Why would Jesus use pagan false doctrine in what you call a parable!" To deny Jesus did this falls on deaf ears considering all other Arians have been honest enough to admit it! Second, saying "water is not really wet" doesn't change the fact that water really it wet! Of course it is the Watchtower theology that is all wet! But Jw's fail to admit that too!
4. Their view makes the parable have no meaning to first century Christians to whom it was addressed! Remember that parables may have been pointed at the Pharisees, but ultimately they were to teach truth to Christians! How ridiculous that 1st century Christians figured the parable had no application till 1919 AD!

The suggestion that Jesus used Jewish Fable and Pagan false doctrine in Luke 16 is inconceivable! Arians, who believe Jesus sided with the Sadducean view of extinction, simply cannot explain Luke 16. They are forced into falsely accusing Jesus of promoting what He knew was pagan false doctrine! The only reasonable conclusion, is that conscious life after death IS NOT pagan false doctrine, but the very truth Jesus chose to convey by simply reading Luke 16! Paul condemned using Jewish myths and fables in 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16! Rather than call themselves false teachers, they call Jesus the false teacher!

Jesus did not use pagan false doctrine in Luke 16! Conscious life after death is exactly what Jesus intended to teach!
Paul condemned using Jewish myths and fables in 1 Tim. 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:4; Tit. 1:14; 2 Pet. 1:16!

Christadelphians accuse Jesus of using pagan false doctrine in Luke 16!
How repulsive!
Paul condemned using Jewish myths and fables in Titus 1:14!
Rather than call themselves false teachers, Christadelphians call Jesus a false teacher! In fact, they make the same argument about demons being an accommodation of Jewish myth and pagan doctrine.

Christadelphians won a S.T.I.N.C.S. trophy for calling Jesus a false teacher!

Seventh-day Adventists accuse Jesus of using pagan false doctrine in Luke 16!
How repulsive!
Paul condemned using Jewish myths and fables in Titus 1:14!
Rather than call themselves false teachers, Seventh-day Adventists call Jesus a false teacher!

Seventh-day Adventists won a S.T.I.N.C.S. trophy for calling Jesus a false teacher!

Edward Fudge accuses Jesus of using pagan false doctrine in Luke 16!
How repulsive!
Paul condemned using Jewish myths and fables in Titus 1:14!
Rather than call himself a false teacher, Edward Fudge calls Jesus a false teacher!

Herbert W. Armstrong accuses Jesus of using pagan false doctrine in Luke 16!
How repulsive!
Paul condemned using Jewish myths and fables in Titus 1:14!
Rather than call himself a false teacher, Herbert W. Armstrong calls Jesus a false teacher!

Cannot be Literal: body parts

• Since this passage is cited as a literal description of actual events (and not as a parable) it is helpful to show that even the immortal soulist cannot take this passage as a literal description. The following is the evidence: The passage speaks about bodies not souls. E.g., eyes, bosom (vs. 23) tip of finger and tongue (vs. 24). (Christadelphian handbook: Wrested Scriptures, Ron Able, Luke 16)
• Contenders for literalism suppose that the rich man and Lazarus were disembodied spirits, destitute of bodies. Yet the rich man is described as having "eyes" that see and a "tongue" that speaks, as well as seeking relief from the "finger" of Lazarus-all real body parts. They are portrayed as existing physically, despite the fact that the rich man's body was duly buried in the grave. Was his body carried away into hades together with his soul by mistake? (Immortality or Resurrection?, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist, Ch 5: State of the Dead)
• Another dilemma that arises with a literal interpretation of this story could be called "the mystery of the empty graves." If this is taken literally, apparently neither of the two leading characters spent very long in the grave--both being whisked away rather quickly to their respective places of reward. Their bodies obviously came along, for we find the rich man lifting up his eyes, and desiring to have his tongue cooled by a drop of water from the finger of Lazarus who was resting, as we have seen, in Abraham's bosom. Enough graves have been exhumed in recent years to know that the bodies of the deceased are carried neither to heaven or hell after burial. They finally turn to dust and await the resurrection. (The rich man and Lazarus, Dennis Crews, Amazing Facts, SDA)

1. Arians make a very weak argument here, claiming that the rich man in Luke 16 took his body with him to Hades because it mentions fingers and tongues etc.
2. God is composed 100% of spirit, yet is also spoken of as having human body parts. Arians don't think God has a literal flesh and blood body like man! This is called anthropomorphism which we discussed in the introduction section on "word pictures"!
3. We agree that the physical elements of tongues, fingers and fire are not literal in the same way that God's hands, ears, face: Isa 59:1-2; arms: Ex. 6:6 eyes, ears, heart: 2 Chr 7:15-16 are not literal. BUT GOD STILL POSSESSES SOMETHING that corresponds to these physical things.
4. Just because God and the dead are described using anthropomorphism does not mean that something is indeed literally there that is outside our ability to comprehend.
5. Look over very carefully our section on word pictures and you will give up the false doctrine of the dead being extinct!

Cannot be Literal: contradicts other doctrine

A literal interpretation of the parable contradicts some fundamental Biblical truths. (Immortality or Resurrection?, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist, Ch 5: State of the Dead)

We deny this! conscious life after death and the core of teaching within Luke 16 only contradicts Neo-Sadduceeian false doctrine!

Cannot be Literal: immediate rewards

If the narrative is literal, then Lazarus received his reward and the rich man his punishment, immediately after death and before the judgment day. But the Bible clearly teaches that the rewards and punishments, as well as the separation between the saved and the unsaved will take place on the day of Christ's coming. (Immortality or Resurrection?, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist, Ch 5: State of the Dead)

Such is a silly argument. Luke 16 actually mirrors what happens when a murderer is caught and awaiting his sentence. He is in jail, although his final sentence is not yet given. God, in his justice system, does exactly the same thing... Luke 16 proves it! Further the righteous have not yet received the full reward of heaven and their immortal spirit bodies. Lazarus was a spirit without a body!

Cannot be Literal: figurative death

That it cannot be concluded from this parable that Hades itself is a place of blazing fire is made clear at Revelation 20:14, where death and Hades are described as being hurled into "the lake of fire." The death of the rich man and his being in Hades must therefore be figurative, figurative death being mentioned elsewhere in the Scriptures. (Luke 9:60; Col. 2:13; 1 Tim. 5:6) So the fiery torment was experienced while he was figuratively dead but actually alive as a human. (Jws, Aid to Bible understanding, Illustrations, p818)

 False argument refuted:

1. We are always entertained to tears with any Jehovah's Witness interpretation of scripture.
2. Jw's have absolutely no concept of the definition of death being a separation between two things.
3. Jw's have no understanding of the difference between physical death (separation of body and soul) and spiritual death (separation of man and God)

Cannot be Literal: geographic distance

• A gulf separates Lazarus in Heaven (Abraham's bosom) from the rich man in hades. The gulf is too wide for anyone to cross and yet narrow enough to permit them to converse. Taken literally, this means that Heaven and Hell are within geographical speaking and seeing distance from each other so that saints and sinners eternally can see and communicate with one another. (Immortality or Resurrection?, Samuele Bacchiocchi, Seventh-day Adventist, Ch 5: State of the Dead)
• Look at the incidents of the parable: see how incompatible they are with the popular theory [conscious life after death]. Does popular theology allow of the wicked in hell seeing the righteous in heaven? or admit of the possibility of conversation passing between the occupants of the two places? (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)

 False argument refuted:

1. Why do Arians reject the clear teaching of the Bible? If Jesus told us that the wicked and the righteous would both talk and see each other, who are they to challenge Jesus' words!
2. A lot of Bible doctrines make no human sense to Arians and they reject them! Eternal conscious torment is another example!
3. Instead of double questioning God Arians should let the Bible and not human emotion and reason affect what they accept as true!

Cannot be Literal: pit isn't obstacle

Is a "gulf" an obstacle to the transit of an immaterial soul? (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)

 False argument refuted:

1. We do believe that this is a literal pit between two physical things. This is the spirit world remember, where nothing physical exists. .
2. The gulf is a word picture. Something like a pit separates the wicked from the righteous.
3. This is just another example similar to rejecting the use of anthropomorphism.

Cannot be Literal: only one drop?

• If the rich man was suffering in unquenchable fire, what good would one drop of water do to soothe his agony? (Christadelphian)
• And has the popular theory of the immortal soul, fingertips, tongue, and other material members, on which water would have a cooling affect? ... If we insist upon the story as a literal narrative, we are committed to all these particulars, which are so thoroughly at variance with the popular theory. (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)
• Why did he call for water? To put out the fires of all "hell"?--the kind of hell people would have you believe he was in? Ah, no! He only wanted a mere couple of drops of water on Lazarus finger--why?--"to cool my tongue!" ... Just a couple of drops that's all the water he requested! Doesn't that strike you as strange? (Lazarus and the Rich Man, H. W. Armstrong, 1953)

1. This is just another example similar to rejecting the use of anthropomorphism.
2. The same could be said of Jesus asking for a drink on the cross rather than being taken down from the cross. The fact remains that the rich man was in fire and wanted ask for a "fire hose" but merely asked the absolute minimum as a starting point of relief. His shame to make any request at all in light of his unwillingness to give Lazarus anything when alive, is obvious to the context.
3. The rich man only asked for one drop, because, although he wanted a swimming pool, he felt like this was the most he could ask for. It was a starting point in the process! His hunch was right! He was refused even one drop!

Only a parable: Jesus always spoke in parables

But if any insist that it is not a parable, they must be reminded that "Without a parable spake he not unto them" Matt. 13: 34 (Christadelphian)

With logic like this, no wonder the world is filled with false teachers! Have these guys ever even read the gospels? Only a small part of Jesus teachings are "parables". Stop and look at this Christadelphian argument, it is ignorance gone to seed!

Only a parable: many churches teach it so

Even orthodox believers talk of it as a parable, which it doubtless is. (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)

We have documented that some who believe in conscious life after death, call Luke 16 a parable. Such does not make it one! But we noted that even if it was a parable, all parables are founded upon the real and the possible!

Only a parable: speaking trees in OT

• But it may be urged that all parables have their foundation in fact. So they have, but they do not necessarily exhibit things that are possible. Parables in which trees speak, and a thistle goes in quest of matrimonial alliances, and corpses rise out of their tombs and address other corpses newly arrived, will be found in the Scriptures (Judges 9:8; 2 Kings 14:9; Isaiah 14:9,11). The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is founded on fact but not necessarily on a literal possibility. (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)

• This is utter deception and bad scholarship. Judges 9:8; 2 Kings 14:9; Isaiah 14:9,11 are NOT PARABLES BUT FABLES. There is a huge difference. We have correctly defined the differences between a parable and a fable above in this document.
• But more importantly, although there are fables in the Old Testament, JESUS NEVER USED FABLES EVER!
• OT writers referred to "talking trees". But we know from human experience that such is not literally possible! To argue that Jesus used fable-like elements in Luke 16 is categorically different than talking trees. We are totally UNABLE to discern, from human experience, whether the dead are conscious! Why would Jesus (our window into the spirit world outside of human experience) mislead us???
• Of course Jesus did not mislead us, he spoke in Luke 16, exactly the state of things.
• So our statement that "all parables have their foundation in fact" stands unrefuted!

Parable designed to confuse enemies!

It is in these plain words of Christ that we are to seek for Christ's real ideal on the subject of the dead, and not in a parabolic discourse, addressed to his enemies for the purpose of confusion and condemnation and not of instruction. It would be strange indeed of so important a doctrine as the heaven-and-hell consciousness of the dead should have to depend upon a parable! (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)

This argument is absolutely incredible! The problem is that even the disciples believed in conscious life after death. Jesus' parable confused the disciples too! 99% of the church goers believe in conscious life after dead today. Jesus powerful words in Luke 16 are seen as very clear. Did Jesus even mislead the faithful? Where did Jesus ever come out and say, "the dead are extinct and unconscious'? He never did. So according to Christadelphians, Jesus was a deceiver! Further, no one disputes the spiritual meaning of the parable of the sower, they simply reject it as true! In fact the opposite it happening here.

Only a parable: "Certain man"

It is not a true story, but a parable. The story just before it, about the unjust steward, begins in exactly the same way: "There was a certain rich man. ..." And that story was a parable about the Pharisees. Jesus says so in verse 15. (Christadelphian)

The expression "certain man" is used in many places in the Bible both by Jesus and others as the normal way of referring to actual live humans. see: "Go into the city to a certain man, and say to him" Mt 26:17; Lk 8:27; 14:2; Jn 5:5; 11:1; Acts 3:2 25:14. Because parables are always based upon reality it is more likely that when the expression "certain" is used that Jesus is bringing to remembrance a known current event by most people. Just like we could say, "There was a certain king who got caught cheating on his wife in the palace" immediately brings to mind US president Clinton. We find no reason why the parable of the good Samaritan, for example, could not have been a know recent true story. However, we are quite willing to accept that Jesus did use the expression "certain man" when He invented a fictitious story for a parable. All we are arguing here is that the expression "certain man" is used both of true and fictitious stories and the argument that Luke 16 cannot be true because of this is simply bad logic.

No need for resurrection!

What need, according to the popular view [conscious life after death], for a rising from the dead, since a spirit commissioned from the "vast deep" would have been sufficient to communicate the warning? (Christadelphian, Christendom Astray, p35)

First we note that Paul went to paradise but when he came back he was not permitted to speak about what he saw! 2 Cor 12:4 "was caught up into Paradise, and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak". Obviously the many dead who were raised were forbidden to speak about the details of Paradise. But granting, for the sake of argument, that the dead are extinct, the influence of someone rising from the dead to warn about a coming judgement is no greater than the pre-existent Jesus (Jw & SDA view) coming down from heaven. Even granting the impossible Christadelphian view that Jesus had no pre-existence at all, they must still recognize that He performed miracles of raising from the dead and gave warnings, yet they rejected him.

Only rich man in Hades:

Only the rich man was in Hades, Lazarus was not, being in Abraham's bosom

We wonder what this proves? Assuming that only the rich man was in Hades, that does not change the fact that the rich man was totally conscious apart from his physical body after death. But the text does not say that Lazarus was not in Hades! We argue that Hades is a two compartment place that includes Abraham's bosom. (see above)

Not fire but "shining"

• This brings us to the sole usage of phlox without pur, of flame without fire. Commenting on this, W. E. Vine in his Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words has this to say: "phlox 5395, akin to Lat. fulgeo, `to shine,' is used apart from pur, `fire,' in Luke 16:24; with pur, it signifies `a fiery flame,' lit., `a flame of fire.' Acts 7:30; 2 Thess. 1:8, where the fire is to be understood as the instrument of Divine judgment; Heb. 1:7, where the meaning probably is that God makes His angels as active and powerful as a flame of fire; in Rev. 1:14; 2:18; 19:12," ... We suggest that the shining referred to here, the effulgence, is the exposure of the hypocrisies of the Pharisees' position by the spreading light of the Gospel. (Jehovah's Witness)
• Professor Lightfoot has noted that there exists a similar parable in the second part of the Talmud, the Gemara. Josephus, in his lecture to the Greeks on the state of the dead, also gives an oblique reference to the parable [though some consider this reference in Josephus to be spurious.] Since the Talmud was a collection of the oral traditions of Jewry, it seems very likely that this parable originated as an illustration of the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 32. (Jehovah's Witness)

1. Vine would never agree! Notice that the compound word "flame of fire" = "phlox + pur". Typical of the Jehovah's Witnesses dismal understanding of Greek when the New World Translation was made they fail to note that Vine tells us that the compound Greek word, "phlox + pur" is not rendered "shining of fire" but "flame of fire". Take your pick! 1. Flame 2. Fire.
2. And the tongue is a fire (pur), the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire (phlogizo) the course of our life, and is set on fire (phlogizo) by hell (gehenna). James 3:6
3. But to make matters worse the New World Translation renders Lk 16:24, "I am in anguish in this blazing fire". Too bad the Holy Spirit didn't lead the Governing body to simply use the word, "shining"!
4. Overall, this is one of most ridiculous arguments we have ever seen! To transfer the flame of torment of a dead man in the grave to the terrified look on the face of non-Jehovah's Witnesses when they knock on their door... What can we say... Only a Jw could dream this stuff up!
5. So Moses by writing Deut 32:22 misled the parable writers of the Talmud that the dead are conscious departed spirits that suffer torment. Then Jesus picked up on this Jewish fable and expanded upon it in Luke 16. If Jesus is a window into spiritual truth, why would he perpetuate this false teaching when Paul condemned Jewish fables and myths in Tit 1:14.
6. Granting this ridiculous notion that Jesus would do such a thing, If there is a direct connection between Luke 16 and Deut 32:33 the fire mentioned in sheol cannot be explained away with wishful Greek etymoligcal gymnastics based on the word "flame" in Lk 16:24 being mere "shining".

The literal, post resurrection, view
(Neo-Sadduceeism)

Herbert W. Armstrong, Plain truth magazine and most Armstrong splinter groups.