Your explanation works for everything except for the Luke 16 citation and the Revelation 6 and 7 citations.
A case could even be made for Luke 16 actually taking place after the resurrection of the body and the judgement.
But that case is explicitly ruled out on the Revelation 6 and 7 citations.
And, as to the CES article, I full well acknowledge that sleep is a metaphor for death. No question. Otherwise, this article pre-supposes the subscription of the reader to the soul-sleep theory promoted by Wierwille et al. In re-examining my beliefs several years ago, I re-examined that one, as well, and found it wanting.
However, as always YMMV. And, as I've said before on other subjects, we'll find out soon enough one way or another.
By the way, I looked at another section of that site that attempted to deal with the Rev 6:9-11 passage that I cited...
Revelation 6:9-11
(9) And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:
(10) And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?
(11) And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.
From these verses it is taught that the “souls” of dead people are alive and speaking. We have seen that in the Bible the word “soul” very often refers to the person himself. Here is another example:
1 Peter 3:20
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 [eight people] were saved by water.
Such is the case in Revelation 6:9. The statement simply means, “I saw those [people] who had been slain.” How did John “see” them? In the vision that Jesus Christ gave him, recorded in the Book of Revelation, of many future events, including the bodily resurrection of those saints martyred during the period of tribulation. How then did they “cry with a loud voice”? This is the figure of speech called personification. It is:
A figure by which things are represented or spoken of as persons; or, by which we attribute intelligence, by words or actions, to inanimate objects or abstract ideas. 75
“Inanimate objects” includes dead people. Figuratively, they are represented as alive and waiting, and thus this usage is similar to the usage in Isaiah 14:8-10 noted earlier. Certainly they were not disembodied beings floating around, for how could such wear robes? (For a thorough exposition of Revelation 6:9-11, see E.W. Bullinger’s Commentary On Revelation, pages 263-274.)
OK, so where to start...
The first thing. Yes, the word psuche is used in both Rev 6:9 and 1 Pet 3:20. One thing that the author of the quoted work doesn't mention is that the usage in Rev 6:9 is in the accusative and that the usage in 1 Pet 3:20 is in the nominative. The usage in Rev 6:9 is further modified by the word sphazo. That word means "to slay." However, in its usage in Rev 6:9, it is expressed as a past participle. That means that, even though it is a verb, it acts like a noun. This "noun"/ participle is written in the Genitive. That implies a type of possession with the noun to which it refers. In other words, the usage in 1 Pet could easily be substituted with the word "lives" (rather than "people", as the author suggests) [i.e., 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 [eight peoplelives] were saved by water.] While in Revelation, the word psuche must refer to the participle that is modified by it. In other words, the souls [or lives] of those who were slain.
So, in other words, the conclusion drawn by the author,
Such is the case in Revelation 6:9. The statement simply means, “I saw those [people] who had been slain.” How did John “see” them? In the vision that Jesus Christ gave him, recorded in the Book of Revelation, of many future events, including the bodily resurrection of those saints martyred during the period of tribulation. How then did they “cry with a loud voice”? This is the figure of speech called personification.
is simply in error.
Had the author said, instead, The statement simply means, “I saw those souls/ lives of the [people] who had been slain.”, it would be accurate. As to the usage of the figure of speech personification, that would be mandated on the false assumption that what he saw was dead bodies. And, as one can see when the verse is understood, he isn't seeing dead bodies, but the souls (or lives/ life force) of those who were slain. Therefore, since one is not attaching animation to something inanimate, but rather describning something that is animate, the figure of speech doesn't apply.
It's understandable that the author of the work I quoted would make this error. The fine distinctions necessary to understand the text cannot be gotten simply from reading a book by VPW, an interpretation by EW Bullinger, and a concordance. One must be able to discern the parts of speech and the form of the word, as actually used in the text. With, simply, a concordance-level understanding of Greek, one wouldn't catch this.
Also, I honestly have a problem with this type of study, in general. It puts forward a proposition and then, rather than seeking to prove it, it shows how we should discount any scripture that disagree with it. I, frankly, find that sort of study to be dishonest. No offense to those who do subscribe to this sort of study, but it is IMHO. And YMMV, as always.
The important thing in all honesty is not the answer to this question, but a belief in the resurrection of the dead. That is the key...that we know that we will see the Lord. Whether it is an ontological immediacy or a literal immediacy is not nearly as important as the fact that it will occur...
It's unfortunate that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16) is only employed in these "life-after-death" discussions, because there's more in that parable that concerned the present situation in first century Palestine (and certainly can still apply today). William R. Herzog, in a chapter entitled "The Unbridgeable Chasm" (from Parables as Subversive Speech, p.128):
"The parable is not a story about abstract social types but a story about representatives of two social classes, the urban elites and the desperate expendables, those who nearly had everything and those who had almost nothing. In this case, wealth may indeed lead to Hades, for such wealth could be obtained only by the systematic exploitation of the poor, and it could be maintained only by their continual oppression. The urban elites who lived at the expense of the poor twisted the Torah and Temple to serve their ends. They read the Prophets for their comfort and Moses to study the purities lest they should become unclean. Their wealth and its use in conspicuous consumption, their rapacious greed and its extraction of any surplus from the poor, their pursuit of power and privilege with its accompanying suppression of the people of the land, all these characteristics of the rich man's class reveal that its wealth is no sign of blessing but a curse on the land. The rich man is not overtly condemned for his wealth, and the parable probably assumes that he is pious and Torah-observant because those were the characteristics of the ruling elites in Jerusalem and other urban areas. But his fate after death and his subsequent refusal to perceive Lazarus as kin describe the nearly insurmountable barriers erected by his class and its privilege."
There is so much more detail in this chapter to which I can't do justice without violating the "fair use" law concerning copyrighted material; please do yourselves a favor - get this fantastic book!
It presents a stunning glimpse into another dimension to Jesus' expressions that concerned the grave inequalities of His day - He was crucified as much for the content of His parables - if not more- as anything else He uttered.
Boy I'm so glad to have learned about figures of speech in the Way.
The verses in Luke are a parabola or parable they are not a true account of death.
In the New Testament instances of the word, it is used of a story with a hidden meaning, without pressing in every detail. This likeness is generally only in some special point. Parables are used from the resemblance of the one thing to another.
The thing may be true or imaginary but the events must be possible or likely to have happened
At any rate those that hear must believe that they are possible events, though it is not necessary that the speaker should believe them..
Parables often have a misconception that they are to make things clear or plain ,but in truth they are some of the most difficult sections of scripture often to understand.
First to really study this scripture section would take more space and time than we or I have here. I'll try to give the some and jist forgive me if I am not clear in my brevity.
We have seen from Parables the following:
*it is a story with a hidden meaning
*It is not pressing in every detail
*The likeness is true in one point
*It can be imaginary but the events must be possible
*The speaker does not have to believe them, but the hearer must believe that they are possible.
This section is filled with references to Pharisaical beliefs Vs 22 the angels..... The Pharisees taught that there were three sets of angles for wicked men, and others for good men.
Abraham's bosom... The Pharisees also taught that there were three places at death 1. Abraham's bosom 2. under the throne of glory 3. in the garden of Eden. ( Paradise) Speaking of death they would say "this day he sits in Abraham's bosom"
vs 23 Another Pharisee teaching was that in life two men may be coupled together and one sees the other after death and conversations take place.
(I would refer you to Lightfoots Works Vol. xii for a better study on these things.)
Jesus used the Pharisee's teachings which they and everyone else were familiar with to make his likeness in one point he used imagery of familiar Pharisee imaginary stories to tell his hidden meaning. Remember a parable can be imaginary but the events must be possible. This was brilliant on his part he used things very familiar to the Pharisees from their beliefs into a story much like they had told before. Remembering that in a parable the speaker (JESUS) did not have to believe it ( which he did not). but the ones who heard it (The Pharisees) had to believe it was possible which they would have because it was their teaching.
Now the point or one place where the likeness is true: It is easy to see what was the design and intention of this parable was, it was not in the story itself, but the Lords words were proved to be true by the results of his resurrection as well as another Lazarus. Note the use of the same name in his story leaving the listener to make the connection. you also have the coupling of two men Jesus and Lazarus from Pharisee teaching.
Verses 30 & 31 are the hidden meaning of his parable. The whole story not true in all points but true in one special point which was that the Pharisees did not believe Moses and the prophets nor would his or Lazarus's resurrection make them believe.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
(Note the Lords true word in contrast to the rich man's in verse 30)
Well that's a very quick explanation of those verses there is a lot more in the word by word breakdown sorry I did not have the time . But something to study maybe? Isn't God's word fun when it speaks for itself. I am amazed at how Jesus took the Pharisees beliefs that he learned from youth and wove them into a story that would expose and convict their hearts.
"The parable is not a story about abstract social types but a story about representatives of two social classes, the urban elites and the desperate expendables, those who nearly had everything and those who had almost nothing. "
Jesus' primary point was not one of bringing attention to "The Word of God" and a doctrine of the resurrection -
rather, He may have been using "The Word of God" and "the doctrine" of the resurrection to illustrate and address the pressing social situation of His day and his world, namely, the chasm between rich and poor.
The arrogance of the rich man and his complacency of his wealth and privilege is apparent even while he is in Hades - he tells Abraham to have poor Lazarus "do this", have Lazarus "do that" - as if he still occupied a class above Lazarus(!)
The chasm between rich and poor was not an abstract in Jesus' day!
From the back cover description of Herzog's work:
"In this ground-breaking book, William Herzog shows that the focus of the parables was not a vision of the glory of the reign of God but on the gory details of how oppression served the interests of the ruling class. The parables were a form of social analysis, as well as theological reflection...He draws upon an analysis of the social setting of the parables, inclusing the macrosociology of advanced agrarian societies, the characteristics of bureaucratic and aristocratic empires, the nature of Mediterranean societies, the way economies worked in antiquity, peasant studies, the nature of village life and of politics and patron-client relations in the ancient world, and the role and meaning of legal systems. In doing so, he demonstrates that the parables were not just earthly stories with heavenly meanings but earthy stories with heavy meanings."
For all that, it's not a very difficult book to read (no Hebrew or Greek mumbo-jumbo to swim through).
All too often we're accustomed to interpreting Jesus' parables according to whatever "theology" one holds- but to interpret it against "real life" of the time is an extraordinary step!
As I said in an earlier post on another thread - ultimately it's not theology or "faith" which convinces me as to the historicity of Jesus - not the Marcionites, not the Catholics, not the Wayfers, - not Romans 1:1-4 or Romans 10:9 or some long-winded creed from one group or another -it's the parables themselves.
Thank you for the comments. I would note to you that I actually read the Bullinger account that you so dilligently typed out prior to posting the Luke 16 account. It is interesting that the 'figure-master' himself explicitly stated in his commentary on Luke 16:19 that this is not a parable. (Having said that, I actually agree with you that it has the 'purpose' of a parable, even though it might not fit within Bullinger's rule of parable construction precisely).
You are right in pointing this out, because it serves the purpose in illustrating the importance of charity for our neighbor and that the self-centeredness of the rich man in life had consequences in death. But the story would have fallen apart had the audience not had the eschatology to accept the illustration contained in the story. Upon further reading, in fact, I would like to withdraw a statement I made that said <i>A case could even be made for Luke 16 actually taking place after the resurrection of the body and the judgement.</i> It is clear, upon further reading of the section (cf v 27-29), that it could not have happened after the general judgement.
In looking at this type of story (parable), one doesn't reject all the facts to make the point...the facts in the story illustrate the point in a powerful fashion through using these points to illustrate another one. (Although, again, since there is no comparison going on here, technically it is not a parable -- even though the effect is one of a powerful message)
<hr>
Danny,
Very good points brought up illustrating the true point of this story! This is a powerful illustration of the importance of sharing our wealth with those in need -- one that could well be pointed out to many in this society (rather than depending upon the teats of the socialist sow for our existence)
It's understandable that the author of the work I quoted would make this error. The fine distinctions necessary to understand the text cannot be gotten simply from reading a book by VPW, an interpretation by EW Bullinger, and a concordance. One must be able to discern the parts of speech and the form of the word, as actually used in the text. With, simply, a concordance-level understanding of Greek, one wouldn't catch this.
Also, I honestly have a problem with this type of study, in general. It puts forward a proposition and then, rather than seeking to prove it, it shows how we should discount any scripture that disagree with it. I, frankly, find that sort of study to be dishonest. No offense to those who do subscribe to this sort of study, but it is IMHO. And YMMV, as always.
Excellent observation, Mark. Unfortuneately, that is precisely the type of research that we all were schooled in while in TWI.
I have no problem with them, nor do I see a contradiction. When we die -- we die, and the next thing we know is *the great here-after* (whatever that might entail).
It will be *immediate* to the person involved, simply because there is no knowledge in death, nor any sense of time passing.
Thanks for explaining, David. So, am I understaning you to say that your take away from those scriptures is that the dead person is instantly shifted to the “future” and is with God, but that in “our time” they are dead, decomposing flesh, breath life into the air and spirit with God, but not with God in the present time?
That Point B doesn’t exist for the dead person, but that it does for us because we are still alive? Just trying to get a grip on this. It’s a new concept for me to consider. I haven’t looked at the “Truth or Tradition” link yet, but will soon. Thank you.
Mark, again, thank you for so clearly and simply laying out things. :)
All too often we're accustomed to interpreting Jesus' parables according to whatever "theology" one holds- but to interpret it against "real life" of the time is an extraordinary step!
That’s what I’ve been looking at a lot lately, Dan. Thank you, the book does sound like a really good read. I’ll certainly put it on my list of books to get to.
In looking at this type of story (parable), one doesn't reject all the facts to make the point...the facts in the story illustrate the point in a powerful fashion through using these points to illustrate another one. (Although, again, since there is no comparison going on here, technically it is not a parable -- even though the effect is one of a powerful message)
I concur. :D
I also concur with Oakspear’s observation of your comments. :)
It seems as though a parable, while it make be teaching several lessons or layers of teaching, is not going to contain lies. Blatant mis-representation of facts to make a point is just not going to happen – well, I don’t *think* it would happen.
Mark I figured that you had taken Bullinger's account into consideration, the fact that you offered the verses anyway as support that the dead are alive led me to conclude that you did not agree with his explanation at least in some part. It appears that this section gave Dr. Bullinger a bit of trouble as well, you are correct in that he at the first of his commentary does not list it as a parable because it sites a notable example of the Pharisees tradition. However the footnote in verse 31 of his companion Bible at chapter end he seems to except it is. Lightfoot did consider it as one. In any case 'purpose of a parable' works ok for me also.
Regarding the facts in a story if this were a true parable as Bullinger points out the thing, history, or story may be true or imaginary but the events must be possible. Certainly not all facts would be ignored however some may, where they would be impossible such as trees speaking for instance then yes the facts would be untrue. In some cases it becomes easy to miss the point getting lost on details that are not pressing to the point.
Dan
I'm going to check the book out however I must say up front that I don't concur with his theory as you posted.
Jesus' primary point was not one of bringing attention to "The Word of God" and a doctrine of the resurrection -
rather, He may have been using "The Word of God" and "the doctrine" of the resurrection to illustrate and address the pressing social situation of His day and his world, namely, the chasm between rich and poor.
This does not fit with the records of the life of Jesus. Time and time again he faced this issue of social change from the people ,his disciples, and apostles. His purpose was not to bring about social change although a byproduct of belief of his teachings would or could to some extent result in social change. But that was not his focus.
Luke 4:17-19
And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 2
Luke 2:49 - And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Jesus' whole life was about making known the Father and His will he was not concerned with the affairs of Rome or in setting up a earthly kingdom to affect political change but with the kingdom of God The record in Luke is clear what he was teaching it says the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, not some social political gospel.
Luke 5:1 - And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
That said I think it is not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus' parables or stories have levels of depth. So that if one would not accept the primary spiritual point, there is something for everyone so to speak, a secondary point of social value, as mark put it the importance of sharing our wealth those in need. I think God is gracious enough to see that even those who don't believe at least can reap some social good from the scriptures though not His primary wish.
I certainly would not profess to be a biblical scholar at any level close to men like Dr. Bullinger, Lightfoot , or a host of others but I am glad to have their work to utilize. That does not make it true because Bullinger said so, they are men like everyone else subject to mistakes, but they are accepted in the Academic circles as biblical scholars. I think Bullinger got it right on this one. In either case I don't like David see it as support for the dead being alive.
Thanks for the considered response. Actually, to be more accurate with your statement, I actually agree that the dead are not alive (zao); however, I do not agree with the conclusion of what Wierwille stated happens with the soul (psuche) after the death of the body. I, frankly, think that this improper and (unless you can show otherwise) unsupported conclusion as to the destination of the soul is a key part of the overall error taught by Wierwille. Actually, I find it sort of ironic. Didn't Wierwille stress somewhere that we needed to stress the difference between body, soul, and spirit?
Not meaning to derail this thread (this is your cue, Belle), but this potential misinterpretation could be a key source of the 'once saved, always saved' error taught by several (but not hardly all) Protestant denominations.
You are, however, quite correct that the state of the soul following a person's death is not the point of this story; the point is to show how the rich have jeopardized the state of their souls through their love of material things. This theme, a call to repentence and away from materialism, is a repeated theme throughout the gospels. And Jesus did not invent this social gospel, we can see this 'charity' as a requirement put forth throughout the Old Testament, as well (consider the requirement not to pick the fields bare, but to leave some so that the poor can glean from them).
Thank you for the comments. I would note to you that I actually read the Bullinger account that you so dilligently typed out prior to posting the Luke 16 account. It is interesting that the 'figure-master' himself explicitly stated in his commentary on Luke 16:19 that this is not a parable. (Having said that, I actually agree with you that it has the 'purpose' of a parable, even though it might not fit within Bullinger's rule of parable construction precisely).
Hey speaking of terms I'm surprised at you Mark at GS it is called making things clear it's only called derailing if you don't agree with the post. I think your ok on that.......
I have some problems with Bullinger's case presented in that document (as subsequently hijacked by Wierwille). First of all, they make the case that soul means breath. I have a problem with that. There are two separate words: pnoe and psuche.
pnoe 4157 -- breath
Acts 2:2, Acts 17:25
psuche 5590 -- soul, life force, that which animates a body
Bullinger, in your linked document, states the following:
This is what God says about death. He explains it to us Himself. We need not therefore ask any man what it is. And if we did, his answer would be valueless, inasmuch as it is absolutely impossible for him to know anything of death, i.e. the death-state, as we have no noun in English to express the act of dying (as German has in the word “sterbend”). This is unfortunate, and has been the cause of much error and confusion.
We find the answer is just as clear and decisive in Psalm 104:29,30:
“Thou takest away their breath (Heb. spirit), they die,
And return to their dust:
Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created:
And thou renewest the face of the earth.”
With this agrees Ecc. 12:7, in which we have a categorical statement as to what takes place at death:
“Then shall the dust RE-turn to the earth as it was:
And the spirit shall RE-turn unto God who gave it”.
The “dust” was, and will again be “dust”: but nothing is said in Scripture as to the spirit apart from the body, either before their union, which made man “a living soul,” or after that union is broken, when man becomes what Scripture calls “a dead soul.”
His citation from Psalms does not refer to the nephesh, but to the ruwach. Likewise the citation from Ecclesiastes. Both verses refer to what happens to the corpus, the body. Both verses speak to what happens to the Spirit given by God, the ruwach. Neither refer to the destination for the psuche/nephesh.
I'm going to check the book out however I must say up front that I don't concur with his theory as you posted.
Whitedove,
This was not "his theory" -but my own opinion that you quoted from my post. I hope you don't allow my personal opinion get in the way of a fine read.
This does not fit with the records of the life of Jesus. Time and time again he faced this issue of social change from the people ,his disciples, and apostles. His purpose was not to bring about social change although a byproduct of belief of his teachings would or could to some extent result in social change. But that was not his focus.
But what are the "records of the life of Jesus" separated from their historical social, economic and political context ? Herzog's book does a fine job toward reconstructing the cultural, social and economic context at the time of Jesus, in an attempt to shed further understanding on His parables. It's immensely fruitful to understand what life was like for those who listened to Jesus. To put yourself in their sandals (or at least for those who had something to wear on their feet).
His purpose "not to bring about social change", being a mere "byproduct"? That's hardly the case when reviewing Jesus' edicts in Luke ( Lk.6:20ff), where we encounter such expressions of especial concern with "social" relations between human beings, as "Blessed are the poor...Blessed are those hungering now...woe to you who are rich...love your enemies...be pitiful as your Father is also pitiful, etc.; not to overlook the fact that He communed with those oft regarded the outcasts of society (in many cases, those rejected by the various forms and movements of Judaism at the time, - Mark - as unworthy of being "in the presence of Yahweh" and of his "holy angels" because they were sick, blind, lame, deaf, frail, or even menstruating (see "Jesus, Table-Fellowship and Qumran" by James D. G. Dunn, in "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls", J. Charlesworth, editor). Contrast Leviticus 21:17-24, the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 7.4-6; 4QCDb; 11QTemple 45.12-14) with Luke 14:12-21.
Jesus' whole life was about making known the Father and His will he was not concerned with the affairs of Rome or in setting up a earthly kingdom to affect political change but with the kingdom of God The record in Luke is clear what he was teaching it says the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, not some social political gospel. ....
Does "the word of God" = the Bible here necessarily? Not to overlook the peculiarity of this section which sets the scene but doesn't deliver the goods in providing any specific record of what He precisely taught there. It's incomplete not to mention pointless in its present form.
But this may have been the original beginning to Jesus' "Sermon by the Shore", after which should follow Luke 5:20ff. But that's only my theory for now.
That said I think it is not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus' parables or stories have levels of depth. So that if one would not accept the primary spiritual point, there is something for everyone so to speak, a secondary point of social value, as mark put it the importance of sharing our wealth those in need. I think God is gracious enough to see that even those who don't believe at least can reap some social good from the scriptures though not His primary wish.
And how is His primary spiritual point or wish ultimately manifested or translated outside of how human beings are to treat one another, react to one another,...?
"Let Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven..."?
It's too bad the Way didn't learn this simple lesson, outside of all their vast, fat-headed gnosis.
I certainly would not profess to be a biblical scholar at any level close to men like Dr. Bullinger, Lightfoot , or a host of others but I am glad to have their work to utilize. That does not make it true because Bullinger said so, they are men like everyone else subject to mistakes, but they are accepted in the Academic circles as biblical scholars. I think Bullinger got it right on this one. In either case I don't like David see it as support for the dead being alive.
Unfortunately, Bullinger himself is dead, and you have an entire century of research and studies that he never had available to him. But you're in a position to learn far more than what Bullinger knew without even breaking a sweat at that, by merely visiting your local libraries, or ordering a couple books from an online bookstore.
As for all the lip service the Way gave to cultural "orientalisms" and figures of speech and all that, Herzog's work succeeds in seemingly accomplishing and even surpassing what Lamsa and Pillai and others had only talked about.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
7
9
6
Popular Days
Jan 21
15
Jan 22
9
Jan 24
7
Jan 25
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Belle 8 posts
likeaneagle 7 posts
WhiteDove 9 posts
markomalley 6 posts
Popular Days
Jan 21 2006
15 posts
Jan 22 2006
9 posts
Jan 24 2006
7 posts
Jan 25 2006
7 posts
dmiller
Oh -- and here is an article from TRUTH OR TRADITION (the CES site) that says a lot.
I don't know who docvic stole it from, but he got it right when he said the dead are dead.
There is no mystery to me about this at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
David,
Your explanation works for everything except for the Luke 16 citation and the Revelation 6 and 7 citations.
A case could even be made for Luke 16 actually taking place after the resurrection of the body and the judgement.
But that case is explicitly ruled out on the Revelation 6 and 7 citations.
And, as to the CES article, I full well acknowledge that sleep is a metaphor for death. No question. Otherwise, this article pre-supposes the subscription of the reader to the soul-sleep theory promoted by Wierwille et al. In re-examining my beliefs several years ago, I re-examined that one, as well, and found it wanting.
However, as always YMMV. And, as I've said before on other subjects, we'll find out soon enough one way or another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
By the way, I looked at another section of that site that attempted to deal with the Rev 6:9-11 passage that I cited...
OK, so where to start...
The first thing. Yes, the word psuche is used in both Rev 6:9 and 1 Pet 3:20. One thing that the author of the quoted work doesn't mention is that the usage in Rev 6:9 is in the accusative and that the usage in 1 Pet 3:20 is in the nominative. The usage in Rev 6:9 is further modified by the word sphazo. That word means "to slay." However, in its usage in Rev 6:9, it is expressed as a past participle. That means that, even though it is a verb, it acts like a noun. This "noun"/ participle is written in the Genitive. That implies a type of possession with the noun to which it refers. In other words, the usage in 1 Pet could easily be substituted with the word "lives" (rather than "people", as the author suggests) [i.e., 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 [eight peoplelives] were saved by water.] While in Revelation, the word psuche must refer to the participle that is modified by it. In other words, the souls [or lives] of those who were slain.
So, in other words, the conclusion drawn by the author,
is simply in error.
Had the author said, instead, The statement simply means, “I saw those souls/ lives of the [people] who had been slain.”, it would be accurate. As to the usage of the figure of speech personification, that would be mandated on the false assumption that what he saw was dead bodies. And, as one can see when the verse is understood, he isn't seeing dead bodies, but the souls (or lives/ life force) of those who were slain. Therefore, since one is not attaching animation to something inanimate, but rather describning something that is animate, the figure of speech doesn't apply.
It's understandable that the author of the work I quoted would make this error. The fine distinctions necessary to understand the text cannot be gotten simply from reading a book by VPW, an interpretation by EW Bullinger, and a concordance. One must be able to discern the parts of speech and the form of the word, as actually used in the text. With, simply, a concordance-level understanding of Greek, one wouldn't catch this.
Also, I honestly have a problem with this type of study, in general. It puts forward a proposition and then, rather than seeking to prove it, it shows how we should discount any scripture that disagree with it. I, frankly, find that sort of study to be dishonest. No offense to those who do subscribe to this sort of study, but it is IMHO. And YMMV, as always.
The important thing in all honesty is not the answer to this question, but a belief in the resurrection of the dead. That is the key...that we know that we will see the Lord. Whether it is an ontological immediacy or a literal immediacy is not nearly as important as the fact that it will occur...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It's unfortunate that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16) is only employed in these "life-after-death" discussions, because there's more in that parable that concerned the present situation in first century Palestine (and certainly can still apply today). William R. Herzog, in a chapter entitled "The Unbridgeable Chasm" (from Parables as Subversive Speech, p.128):
"The parable is not a story about abstract social types but a story about representatives of two social classes, the urban elites and the desperate expendables, those who nearly had everything and those who had almost nothing. In this case, wealth may indeed lead to Hades, for such wealth could be obtained only by the systematic exploitation of the poor, and it could be maintained only by their continual oppression. The urban elites who lived at the expense of the poor twisted the Torah and Temple to serve their ends. They read the Prophets for their comfort and Moses to study the purities lest they should become unclean. Their wealth and its use in conspicuous consumption, their rapacious greed and its extraction of any surplus from the poor, their pursuit of power and privilege with its accompanying suppression of the people of the land, all these characteristics of the rich man's class reveal that its wealth is no sign of blessing but a curse on the land. The rich man is not overtly condemned for his wealth, and the parable probably assumes that he is pious and Torah-observant because those were the characteristics of the ruling elites in Jerusalem and other urban areas. But his fate after death and his subsequent refusal to perceive Lazarus as kin describe the nearly insurmountable barriers erected by his class and its privilege."
There is so much more detail in this chapter to which I can't do justice without violating the "fair use" law concerning copyrighted material; please do yourselves a favor - get this fantastic book!
It presents a stunning glimpse into another dimension to Jesus' expressions that concerned the grave inequalities of His day - He was crucified as much for the content of His parables - if not more- as anything else He uttered.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Boy I'm so glad to have learned about figures of speech in the Way.
The verses in Luke are a parabola or parable they are not a true account of death.
In the New Testament instances of the word, it is used of a story with a hidden meaning, without pressing in every detail. This likeness is generally only in some special point. Parables are used from the resemblance of the one thing to another.
The thing may be true or imaginary but the events must be possible or likely to have happened
At any rate those that hear must believe that they are possible events, though it is not necessary that the speaker should believe them..
Parables often have a misconception that they are to make things clear or plain ,but in truth they are some of the most difficult sections of scripture often to understand.
First to really study this scripture section would take more space and time than we or I have here. I'll try to give the some and jist forgive me if I am not clear in my brevity.
We have seen from Parables the following:
*it is a story with a hidden meaning
*It is not pressing in every detail
*The likeness is true in one point
*It can be imaginary but the events must be possible
*The speaker does not have to believe them, but the hearer must believe that they are possible.
This section is filled with references to Pharisaical beliefs Vs 22 the angels..... The Pharisees taught that there were three sets of angles for wicked men, and others for good men.
Abraham's bosom... The Pharisees also taught that there were three places at death 1. Abraham's bosom 2. under the throne of glory 3. in the garden of Eden. ( Paradise) Speaking of death they would say "this day he sits in Abraham's bosom"
vs 23 Another Pharisee teaching was that in life two men may be coupled together and one sees the other after death and conversations take place.
(I would refer you to Lightfoots Works Vol. xii for a better study on these things.)
Jesus used the Pharisee's teachings which they and everyone else were familiar with to make his likeness in one point he used imagery of familiar Pharisee imaginary stories to tell his hidden meaning. Remember a parable can be imaginary but the events must be possible. This was brilliant on his part he used things very familiar to the Pharisees from their beliefs into a story much like they had told before. Remembering that in a parable the speaker (JESUS) did not have to believe it ( which he did not). but the ones who heard it (The Pharisees) had to believe it was possible which they would have because it was their teaching.
Now the point or one place where the likeness is true: It is easy to see what was the design and intention of this parable was, it was not in the story itself, but the Lords words were proved to be true by the results of his resurrection as well as another Lazarus. Note the use of the same name in his story leaving the listener to make the connection. you also have the coupling of two men Jesus and Lazarus from Pharisee teaching.
Verses 30 & 31 are the hidden meaning of his parable. The whole story not true in all points but true in one special point which was that the Pharisees did not believe Moses and the prophets nor would his or Lazarus's resurrection make them believe.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
(Note the Lords true word in contrast to the rich man's in verse 30)
Well that's a very quick explanation of those verses there is a lot more in the word by word breakdown sorry I did not have the time . But something to study maybe? Isn't God's word fun when it speaks for itself. I am amazed at how Jesus took the Pharisees beliefs that he learned from youth and wove them into a story that would expose and convict their hearts.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
LOL looks like Dan and I were hard at work at the same time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Hi White Dove!
But Herzog's statement here bears repeating:
"The parable is not a story about abstract social types but a story about representatives of two social classes, the urban elites and the desperate expendables, those who nearly had everything and those who had almost nothing. "
Jesus' primary point was not one of bringing attention to "The Word of God" and a doctrine of the resurrection -
rather, He may have been using "The Word of God" and "the doctrine" of the resurrection to illustrate and address the pressing social situation of His day and his world, namely, the chasm between rich and poor.
The arrogance of the rich man and his complacency of his wealth and privilege is apparent even while he is in Hades - he tells Abraham to have poor Lazarus "do this", have Lazarus "do that" - as if he still occupied a class above Lazarus(!)
The chasm between rich and poor was not an abstract in Jesus' day!
From the back cover description of Herzog's work:
"In this ground-breaking book, William Herzog shows that the focus of the parables was not a vision of the glory of the reign of God but on the gory details of how oppression served the interests of the ruling class. The parables were a form of social analysis, as well as theological reflection...He draws upon an analysis of the social setting of the parables, inclusing the macrosociology of advanced agrarian societies, the characteristics of bureaucratic and aristocratic empires, the nature of Mediterranean societies, the way economies worked in antiquity, peasant studies, the nature of village life and of politics and patron-client relations in the ancient world, and the role and meaning of legal systems. In doing so, he demonstrates that the parables were not just earthly stories with heavenly meanings but earthy stories with heavy meanings."
For all that, it's not a very difficult book to read (no Hebrew or Greek mumbo-jumbo to swim through).
All too often we're accustomed to interpreting Jesus' parables according to whatever "theology" one holds- but to interpret it against "real life" of the time is an extraordinary step!
As I said in an earlier post on another thread - ultimately it's not theology or "faith" which convinces me as to the historicity of Jesus - not the Marcionites, not the Catholics, not the Wayfers, - not Romans 1:1-4 or Romans 10:9 or some long-winded creed from one group or another -it's the parables themselves.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove,
Thank you for the comments. I would note to you that I actually read the Bullinger account that you so dilligently typed out prior to posting the Luke 16 account. It is interesting that the 'figure-master' himself explicitly stated in his commentary on Luke 16:19 that this is not a parable. (Having said that, I actually agree with you that it has the 'purpose' of a parable, even though it might not fit within Bullinger's rule of parable construction precisely).
You are right in pointing this out, because it serves the purpose in illustrating the importance of charity for our neighbor and that the self-centeredness of the rich man in life had consequences in death. But the story would have fallen apart had the audience not had the eschatology to accept the illustration contained in the story. Upon further reading, in fact, I would like to withdraw a statement I made that said <i>A case could even be made for Luke 16 actually taking place after the resurrection of the body and the judgement.</i> It is clear, upon further reading of the section (cf v 27-29), that it could not have happened after the general judgement.
In looking at this type of story (parable), one doesn't reject all the facts to make the point...the facts in the story illustrate the point in a powerful fashion through using these points to illustrate another one. (Although, again, since there is no comparison going on here, technically it is not a parable -- even though the effect is one of a powerful message)
<hr>
Danny,
Very good points brought up illustrating the true point of this story! This is a powerful illustration of the importance of sharing our wealth with those in need -- one that could well be pointed out to many in this society (rather than depending upon the teats of the socialist sow for our existence)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
That Point B doesn’t exist for the dead person, but that it does for us because we are still alive? Just trying to get a grip on this. It’s a new concept for me to consider. I haven’t looked at the “Truth or Tradition” link yet, but will soon. Thank you.
Mark, again, thank you for so clearly and simply laying out things. :)
That’s what I’ve been looking at a lot lately, Dan. Thank you, the book does sound like a really good read. I’ll certainly put it on my list of books to get to.
I concur. :D
I also concur with Oakspear’s observation of your comments. :)
It seems as though a parable, while it make be teaching several lessons or layers of teaching, is not going to contain lies. Blatant mis-representation of facts to make a point is just not going to happen – well, I don’t *think* it would happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Mark I figured that you had taken Bullinger's account into consideration, the fact that you offered the verses anyway as support that the dead are alive led me to conclude that you did not agree with his explanation at least in some part. It appears that this section gave Dr. Bullinger a bit of trouble as well, you are correct in that he at the first of his commentary does not list it as a parable because it sites a notable example of the Pharisees tradition. However the footnote in verse 31 of his companion Bible at chapter end he seems to except it is. Lightfoot did consider it as one. In any case 'purpose of a parable' works ok for me also.
Regarding the facts in a story if this were a true parable as Bullinger points out the thing, history, or story may be true or imaginary but the events must be possible. Certainly not all facts would be ignored however some may, where they would be impossible such as trees speaking for instance then yes the facts would be untrue. In some cases it becomes easy to miss the point getting lost on details that are not pressing to the point.
Dan
I'm going to check the book out however I must say up front that I don't concur with his theory as you posted.
This does not fit with the records of the life of Jesus. Time and time again he faced this issue of social change from the people ,his disciples, and apostles. His purpose was not to bring about social change although a byproduct of belief of his teachings would or could to some extent result in social change. But that was not his focus.
Luke 4:17-19
And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 2
Luke 2:49 - And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Jesus' whole life was about making known the Father and His will he was not concerned with the affairs of Rome or in setting up a earthly kingdom to affect political change but with the kingdom of God The record in Luke is clear what he was teaching it says the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, not some social political gospel.
Luke 5:1 - And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret,
That said I think it is not out of the realm of possibility that Jesus' parables or stories have levels of depth. So that if one would not accept the primary spiritual point, there is something for everyone so to speak, a secondary point of social value, as mark put it the importance of sharing our wealth those in need. I think God is gracious enough to see that even those who don't believe at least can reap some social good from the scriptures though not His primary wish.
I certainly would not profess to be a biblical scholar at any level close to men like Dr. Bullinger, Lightfoot , or a host of others but I am glad to have their work to utilize. That does not make it true because Bullinger said so, they are men like everyone else subject to mistakes, but they are accepted in the Academic circles as biblical scholars. I think Bullinger got it right on this one. In either case I don't like David see it as support for the dead being alive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
White Dove,
Thanks for the considered response. Actually, to be more accurate with your statement, I actually agree that the dead are not alive (zao); however, I do not agree with the conclusion of what Wierwille stated happens with the soul (psuche) after the death of the body. I, frankly, think that this improper and (unless you can show otherwise) unsupported conclusion as to the destination of the soul is a key part of the overall error taught by Wierwille. Actually, I find it sort of ironic. Didn't Wierwille stress somewhere that we needed to stress the difference between body, soul, and spirit?
Not meaning to derail this thread (this is your cue, Belle), but this potential misinterpretation could be a key source of the 'once saved, always saved' error taught by several (but not hardly all) Protestant denominations.
You are, however, quite correct that the state of the soul following a person's death is not the point of this story; the point is to show how the rich have jeopardized the state of their souls through their love of material things. This theme, a call to repentence and away from materialism, is a repeated theme throughout the gospels. And Jesus did not invent this social gospel, we can see this 'charity' as a requirement put forth throughout the Old Testament, as well (consider the requirement not to pick the fields bare, but to leave some so that the poor can glean from them).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Shame on you-I named it once before in the thread
"'Are the Dead Alive Now' was plagiarized", in the opening post.
It's Bullinger's
"The Rich Man and Lazarus:An Intermediate State?"
vpw even stole the question in the title.
(Other parts of vpw's book were stolen from other books from Bullinger.)
It's online at
http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/
and that page has it available for download in document and PDF formats.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
http://philologos.org/__eb-rml/
Bullinger seems to have very SPECIFIC objections to consideration, because, although he objects to
considering this a parable, (as mentioned in his book "The Rich Man and Lazarus: An Intermediate State?")
but he also continues to call it a parable AFTER that...
He is rather specific that this is a story, and its purpose was to turn the doctrine of
the Pharisees into an indictment of them.
(Which is much what WhiteDove's quote was about as well, as was Dan's.)
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Thanks Mark thorough as usual
Hey speaking of terms I'm surprised at you Mark at GS it is called making things clear it's only called derailing if you don't agree with the post.
I think your ok on that.......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
I have some problems with Bullinger's case presented in that document (as subsequently hijacked by Wierwille). First of all, they make the case that soul means breath. I have a problem with that. There are two separate words: pnoe and psuche.
pnoe 4157 -- breath
Acts 2:2, Acts 17:25
psuche 5590 -- soul, life force, that which animates a body
Bullinger, in your linked document, states the following:
His citation from Psalms does not refer to the nephesh, but to the ruwach. Likewise the citation from Ecclesiastes. Both verses refer to what happens to the corpus, the body. Both verses speak to what happens to the Spirit given by God, the ruwach. Neither refer to the destination for the psuche/nephesh.
That's the problem with Bullinger...imho...
and YMMV
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
Beloved All
God loves you all
I am one who knows the dead in Christ have all ready rose to the air
Jesus Christ won over death then the people who look for the first coming of Christ rose next The bible talks about them
Matt 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
either they got up or the whole bible is wrong
so they would be our elders talked about in Rev
We are the alive in Christ and I say the return of Christ for us is our personal deaths but there is a end to the world coming
I have talk to many dead
Just because there is no conscience in the grave that does not mean the consciences does not go another place
it could leave the body and only the shell of the body in the grave all elst could be with God
that all
sorry if another wrote same thing
with love and a holy kiss blowing your way Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, I guess that settles it, then. Tea, anyone?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I never talk to anyone dead and I don't want to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No this threads not quite dead yet.......... :blink:
Dead Man Dead Man - Bob Dylan
Uttering idle words from a reprobate mind,
Clinging to strange promises, dying on the vine,
Never bein' able to separate the good from the bad,
Ooh, I can't stand it, I can't stand it,
It's makin' me feel so sad.
Dead man, dead man,
When will you arise?
Cobwebs in your mind,
Dust upon your eyes.
Satan got you by the heel, there's a bird's nest in your hair.
Do you have any faith at all? Do you have any love to share?
The way that you hold your head, cursin' God with every move,
Ooh, I can't stand it, I can't stand it,
What are you tryin' to prove?
Dead man, dead man,
When will you arise?
Cobwebs in your mind,
Dust upon your eyes.
The glamour and the bright lights and the politics of sin,
The ghetto that you build for me is the one you end up in,
The race of the engine that overrules your heart,
Ooh, I can't stand it, I can't stand it,
Pretending that you're so smart.
Dead man, dead man,
When will you arise?
Cobwebs in your mind,
Dust upon your eyes.
What are you tryin' to overpower me with, the doctrine or the gun?
My back is already to the wall, where can I run?
The tuxedo that you're wearin', the flower in your lapel,
Ooh, I can't stand it, I can't stand it,
You wanna take me down to hell.
Dead man, dead man,
When will you arise?
Cobwebs in your mind,
Dust upon your eyes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
you guy's crack me up..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Whitedove,
This was not "his theory" -but my own opinion that you quoted from my post. I hope you don't allow my personal opinion get in the way of a fine read.
But what are the "records of the life of Jesus" separated from their historical social, economic and political context ? Herzog's book does a fine job toward reconstructing the cultural, social and economic context at the time of Jesus, in an attempt to shed further understanding on His parables. It's immensely fruitful to understand what life was like for those who listened to Jesus. To put yourself in their sandals (or at least for those who had something to wear on their feet).His purpose "not to bring about social change", being a mere "byproduct"? That's hardly the case when reviewing Jesus' edicts in Luke ( Lk.6:20ff), where we encounter such expressions of especial concern with "social" relations between human beings, as "Blessed are the poor...Blessed are those hungering now...woe to you who are rich...love your enemies...be pitiful as your Father is also pitiful, etc.; not to overlook the fact that He communed with those oft regarded the outcasts of society (in many cases, those rejected by the various forms and movements of Judaism at the time, - Mark - as unworthy of being "in the presence of Yahweh" and of his "holy angels" because they were sick, blind, lame, deaf, frail, or even menstruating (see "Jesus, Table-Fellowship and Qumran" by James D. G. Dunn, in "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls", J. Charlesworth, editor). Contrast Leviticus 21:17-24, the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QM 7.4-6; 4QCDb; 11QTemple 45.12-14) with Luke 14:12-21.
Does "the word of God" = the Bible here necessarily? Not to overlook the peculiarity of this section which sets the scene but doesn't deliver the goods in providing any specific record of what He precisely taught there. It's incomplete not to mention pointless in its present form.
But this may have been the original beginning to Jesus' "Sermon by the Shore", after which should follow Luke 5:20ff. But that's only my theory for now.
And how is His primary spiritual point or wish ultimately manifested or translated outside of how human beings are to treat one another, react to one another,...?"Let Thy Will be done on earth as it is in heaven..."?
It's too bad the Way didn't learn this simple lesson, outside of all their vast, fat-headed gnosis.
Unfortunately, Bullinger himself is dead, and you have an entire century of research and studies that he never had available to him. But you're in a position to learn far more than what Bullinger knew without even breaking a sweat at that, by merely visiting your local libraries, or ordering a couple books from an online bookstore.
As for all the lip service the Way gave to cultural "orientalisms" and figures of speech and all that, Herzog's work succeeds in seemingly accomplishing and even surpassing what Lamsa and Pillai and others had only talked about.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Wonderful, phenomenal posts, y'all! I'm just taking it all in. :) Thank you so much for contributing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.