| Author | Message | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1284 Registered: 7-2003  |
Part IV In part three we studied Paul’s teaching on death in II Cor. 5:1-9. We saw that to be absent from the body is to be present from the Lord. We also saw that we can continue to be actively pleasing to the Lord when absent from the body. In part four I would like to look at Philippians 1:21-26. Although I would still consider this to be a didactic passage, it is a much more personal one for Paul. Paul is in prison and possibly facing death.
Paul sees death, not as a non-existent state, but as a state that can actually be described as “gain”.
In fact, Paul is so eager to be with the Lord that he can barely make up his mind between living or dying. Also note that there is no indication at all that his choices are between living on in the flesh or being non-existent. Rather the most natural way to understand Paul’s dilemma is to understand it as a choice between living on in the flesh or living on in the spirit.
Both options, living on in the flesh or living on in the spirit are desirable to Paul. Paul knows that if he remains in the flesh he will be able to continue his work and serve the fledgling Church. However, he also knows that being with Christ is a far better thing. The only way that being with Christ can be considered better than continuing on in this life is if it is a conscious existence with Christ. If the choice were between staying and continuing his work or becoming non-existent, then it would be a pretty easy choice. Who would be torn between living or being non-existent? That would make non-sense of the dilemma that is tearing Paul in two different directions. It also doesn’t work to say Paul is only looking forward to the future resurrection at the second coming. It’s obvious by the way he is struggling with the decision that he is debating two immediate options: live on in the flesh NOW or depart and be with Christ NOW.
Again, ask yourself what contrast Paul is making here. What is the direct contrast to “remain on in the flesh”? The most direct contrast is to “depart in the spirit”.
Paul makes a selfless decision. As badly as he wants to depart and be with Christ, he chooses instead to remain and continue the work. Of course this would be no decision at all if his only other option was to be non-existent. This entire passage, and the dilemma Paul faces, are both predicated upon the biblical teaching that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. This is the only reason that Paul would have such a hard time choosing. As Christians, it is very comforting to know that to die is gain. To die is to be in the very presence of our Lord. In part five I would like to deal with a passage that comes out of OT wisdom literature. Most of us probably grew up believing that Ecclesiastes 9:5 was the definitive statement on the state of the dead. We will examine this text in the context of its immediate passage, the context of the book, the context of the literature type, the context of its testament, and the context of the entire Bible. I submit to you that this passage, as we were taught it, was ripped from its context at EVERY level of the hermeneutical spiral. Chris | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 534 Registered: 3-2001 |
Chris, This is a topic of great interest to me lately. Thanks for posting the study. I haven't read it yet, but I have printed it and will be reading it over the next day or so. Thanks. Doug | ||
| Lucybugg Registered user Username: Lucybugg Post Number: 18 Registered: 2-2007 |
Thank you for this study; it is something that the hubby and I were having trouble coming to terms with. I'm printing it to take to him. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1285 Registered: 7-2003 |
Doug and Lucy, You are both welcome and I hope you find the study helpful. Chris | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1289 Registered: 7-2003 |
Part V “The dead know nothing.” We have probably all heard that phrase dozens of times and most of us believed that that was the definitive statement on the state of the dead. Most of us believed that that phrase proved that those who died were unconscious or non-existent. But what does this partial quote from Ecclesiastes 9:5 really mean when examined in context? Let’s start by talking about the concept of context. In biblical hermeneutics, context is seen as a series of ever expanding concentric circles. So to really examine the cotext of a text we must first consider the context of the immediate passage it is found in, then consider the context of the book it is within, then consider the contextual implication of the type of literature it is, then consider its context within its testament, and lastly consider its context within the whole Bible. Then and only then can we say that we have examined the context of a text. So let’s trace the context of Ecclesiastes 9:5 through each ring of the hermeneutical spiral. PASSAGE CONTEXT:
The context of the passage is that the dead have no more part in anything “under the sun” (i.e. anything that is done in this world). Christians do not believe that the dead are roaming the earth as spirits. Christians do not believe in ghosts or séances or any other form of spiritualism. The dead are either with the Lord or in Sheol awaiting judgment. They have nothing to do with anything under the sun. The immediate context of “the dead do not know anything” is “under the sun”. The dead know nothing of this world. BOOK CONTEXT:
Whenever I hear someone quote Ecclesiastes 9:5 in a state of the dead discussion, I always think, “Have they ever read Ecclesiastes?” Ecclesiastes was written by Solomon (or in the voice of Solomon) during his apostasy. The context of the entire book is the futility of life apart from God. Depending on the translation you use the Hebrew word might be translated as “futile”, “meaningless”, or “vanity”. Whichever word is used, they all convey absolute hopelessness. The word is used 33 times in the book of Ecclesiastes. There are several passages that recommend that the reader live it up. Eat, drink, and be merry because this is all there is. Several passages suggest that there’s no difference between where the righteous and unrighteous dead end up. This is certainly not the world view of one who is in relationship with God. Christians don’t believe that life is meaningless and they certainly don’t believe that there is no difference between the righteous and the unrighteous. So is Ecclesiastes teaching falsehood? Absolutely not! It’s graphically demonstrating an absolute truth. Life without God is futile. It is meaningless and without any positive hope for the future. Ecclesiastes is truly and accurately portraying the bleak outlook of someone apart from God. It’s a depressing picture, but a true picture of what such a life looks like. Without God we might as well live it up because this is all there is, life is meaningless. Fortunately, Christians have more hope than this. Christians have a hope that goes beyond this life. So this raises the question, “Is this really the primary book from which we should formulate our doctrine on the state of the dead?” Of course not! This book is written to show how depressing and meaningless life apart from God is. The author’s view of death is just as morbid, depressing, and meaningless as his view of life. It is an accurate view if you are separated from God, but it does not describe the view of those who are in Christ. It’s hard to imagine that anyone who has ever read this book through even once would want to make a phrase from this book the foundation of their doctrine on the state of the dead. That’s just not why this book was written. It’s not that I don’t think the book has anything of value to say to us on death, I think it does, but this isn’t the primary place where we want to formulate a key Christian doctrine on the state of the dead. I also want to strongly affirm that I believe all scripture is inspired, inerrant, and useful for teaching and training. However, we need to be careful to rightly use scripture for its intended purpose and make sure we are teaching what is intended. Ecclesiastes is intended to teach us about the hopelessness of life apart from God, not about the state of those who have died in Christ. LITERATURE CONTEXT: Ecclesiastes is part of what is known as “wisdom literature”. Wisdom literature is not usually intended to be didactic doctrinal literature. Wisdom literature teaches us certain truths, but it often uses highly poetic language forms and other literary devices to do so. Because wisdom literature is designed to portray certain truths about life in very memorable ways, we need to be very careful in drawing our doctrine primarily from wisdom literature. Rather we should used didactic passages to interpret the wisdom literature. Let me give you a graphic example from the wisdom literature of Psalms.
Now if we weren’t careful in our hermeneutical methods, we might formulate a doctrine that says that those who kill the children of their enemies will be blessed by God! Now we know that this can’t be because we have didactic passages that teach something very different.
So what do we make of Psalms 137? The Psalms show the full range of human emotion. They often show people crying out to God in their anguish and pain. They show the rawness and pain of the human experience. They encourage us to open our hearts to God, pour out our thoughts to Him, allow Him to comfort us, and ultimately allow Him to conform us to his way of thinking. The Psalms are not primarily intended for the formulation of doctrine. They tell us much about worship, the relationship between God and man, and the woes and joys of life. We can learn much from the Psalms, but they must be interpreted based upon didactic teaching literature or we could easily formulate wrong doctrine. We could give many examples in Proverbs where truisms are advanced that are USUALLY true in most cases, but not ALWAYS true in every case.
While this is usually true, we could probably all cite cases where things did not turn out this way. The proverbs are not meant to be absolutes in all cases, but general truisms about life. This is often the nature of wisdom literature. Much more could be said on this, but suffice it to say that there are many reasons why we do not want to use wisdom literature as our primary source for a doctrine. Hopefully these few examples make the point. TESTAMENT CONTEXT: All of the Bible is inspired, all of the Bible is true, but Jesus is the ultimate revelation of God. The teachings of Jesus and his apostles made things plain that were mysteries in the OT or that were only partially known. This does not mean that the NT corrects the OT, only that it provides more information that expands and clarifies many things that were not fully known in the OT. Some examples of things that were either mysteries or partial mysteries in the OT, but were more fully revealed in the NT, would include; the nature of God’s Messiah, the Trinity, the Church, resurrection, and death. In the OT death is a rather vague shadowy concept not fully understood by the Jews or fully revealed by the OT writers. The NT gives us much more information about what we can expect and why we have such hope. That’s why we need to use the NT to interpret the OT. If our doctrine is primarily formulated on OT passages it is not nearly as strong as if we start with the NT and then interpret the OT. We have a much clearer picture of death in the NT. BIBLICAL CONTEXT: The analogy of faith dictates that we may never interpret any passage in such a way that it contradicts something that is taught elsewhere in scripture. The Bible is remarkably internally consistent. We know that if we ever interpret anything in such a way that in contradicts something else in the Bible, it is not the Bible that is in error, but us. So this means we CANNOT interpret Ecc. 9:5 in such a way as to contradict other parts of the Bible. We cannot use Ecc. 9:5 to contradict Paul’s teaching in I Cor. 5 and Phil. 1. If we do so, it is we who are in error not the Bible. The SDA interpretation of the Ecc. 9:5 puts it in conflict with other parts of the Bible. That means the SDA interpretation must, of necessity, be wrong. In conclusion, it should be apparent that the understanding we grew up with of Ecc. 9:5 is not supported by the context. It’s not supported within the context of the passage, the book, the literature form, the testament, or the Bible as a whole. Overall, this is a very weak “proof text” indeed. It rather surprises me that some still use it. At this point I am done with laying the foundation for our discussion. Next time I’ll tackle the specific questions that were asked about Moses and about Luke 16. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5712 Registered: 12-2003  |
Awesome study, Chris. I love your point that if any passage of Scripture seems to contradict another, WE are at fault, not Scripture. I remember reading in John Piper's book "Brothers, We Are Not Professionals" a passage that said essentially, the hard passages of Scripture are in the Bible precisely so we will go to God in prayer and ask Him to show us what they mean. We are to grapple with those passages, and they cannot mean things different from what the rest of the Bible says. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1290 Registered: 7-2003 |
Part VI Before addressing the questions dealing with the death of Moses and the Rich Man and Lazarus, I had asked for the opportunity to first lay a foundation for my thoughts. I believe I am now ready to address these two cases starting with Moses. Most of us probably grew up believing that Moses was bodily resurrected from the grave with a perfect, imperishable, resurrection body just like we will have some day. But the question arises; do we really have any strong biblical reason to believe that Moses was the first person to be resurrected from the grave with an imperishable resurrection body? Although the point may be debatable, I personally don’t see any particularly good reason to think that Moses was the first to rise from the grave with a resurrection body and I can think of at least one very good theological reason to think this is not the case. Let’s start with what the Bible has to say on the death of Moses.
That’s it. That’s the very last chapter of the Torah. We’re basically told three things: 1. Moses died. 2. God buried Moses. 3. No one knows Moses’ burial place. It is likely that God buried Moses in a remote spot and did not allow anyone to know where it was because the children of Israel would have worshipped the spot and/or the body if they had known where it was. The Israelites had a tendency toward this type of idolatry as evidenced by the fact that they were worshipping the bronze serpent that Moses had made as late as the time of Hezekiah. Even this good thing had been turned into a false of object of worship and had become a snare to them. It is likely that the tomb of Moses would have been a snare to them as well. But whatever the reason for God burying Moses, not a single thing is said or even suggested about resurrecting Moses in a resurrection body. You would think that if such a significant event in history had occurred, the Bible might mention it. If Moses is the first fruits from the dead, that is, the first to receive an imperishable resurrection body like we will one day enjoy, then you would certainly think the Bible would say so, but it doesn’t. A Jewish tradition arose stating that Michael the Archangel (no, Michael is not Jesus, but that’s another study) was assigned the task of burying Moses by God. According to this tradition, Michael and Satan disputed over the body of Moses. This tradition was evidently recorded in a noncanonical work variously referred to as “The Testament of Moses” or “The Assumption of Moses”. In his epistle, Jude alludes to this tradition about the burial of Moses. It should be noted that such an allusion to popular tradition does not mean that “The Testament of Moses” was inspired, only that Jude found this well-known story to be helpful in illustrating the point he was making.
Jude’s point in using this illustration has nothing to do with Moses at all. Rather Jude is making a point about showing proper fear and respect regarding spiritual beings that are more powerful than we are. But what I want us to note is that Jude is not saying that Michael resurrected Moses. To the contrary he is alluding to a Jewish tradition that said that Michael buried Moses. Now let’s look at what God tells Joshua after the death of Moses.
God just says that Moses is dead. There is no hint whatsoever that Moses has been resurrected in a resurrection body. If this had happened, how could God say that Moses was “dead” in any sense of the word? Surely after we have our resurrection bodies we will no longer be referred to as “dead”! Compare what God says about Moses to what the angels say about Jesus at His resurrection:
There’s a big difference! God simply says that Moses is dead, but when Jesus rises from the dead with a resurrection body the angles make it clear that He is not among the dead, He is “living”. But here’s the biggest reason that I don’t think it’s theologically possible for Moses to have risen from the grave with a resurrection body. If Moses had risen from the grave with a resurrection body then he would be the first fruits from the dead and not Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us clearly that Jesus is the first fruits from the dead.
Other people in the Bible had been brought back to life after dying, but they all eventually grew old or sick and died again. Only Jesus has risen from the grave with a perfect imperishable resurrection body guaranteeing that one day we will have resurrection bodies just like His. If Moses had done it first, then Jesus would not be the first fruits from the dead. So here is a summary of the reasons that I think it is highly unlikely that Moses was resurrected from the grave with a resurrection body: 1. The Bible never says that Moses was resurrected; only that he was buried. 2. The Bible specifically calls Moses “dead”. 3. Jewish tradition does not claim that Moses was resurrected with a resurrection body, only that Michael buried him. 4. Jesus is the first fruits from the dead, the first to have an imperishable resurrection body, not Moses. So why were we taught our whole lives that Moses rose from the grave with a resurrection body? We were taught that because of this account in the Gospels which is rather embarrassing for SDA theology.
The transfiguration creates no problems whatsoever for evangelical Christian theology because Christianity has always believed that the dead do not cease to exist, but are consciously awaiting resurrection. So to have Moses appearing with Christ raises no problems at all because it is in harmony with the rest of what the Bible says on death. But it creates a HUGE problem if you happen to teach that there is no spirit and death is a state of non-existence. If you teach that, then you are backed into a corner and have to find a way to explain how Moses could be dead and also be at the transfiguration. The only way out of such a thorny dilemma seems to be inventing the story that Moses was resurrected. Never mind that the Bible never says any such thing. This seems to be a necessary invention if you are going to maintain that there is no spirit and people are non-existent at death. All this begs the question, why insist that there is no spirit and that people are non-existent at death in the face of so much biblical evidence against this view? The answer is simple and it has nothing to do with good hermeneutics. The SDA teaching on the state of the dead is a necessary teaching that is required to maintain the integrity of another key SDA distinctive, the Investigative Judgment. Exploring how the SDA teaching on the state of the dead is necessarily linked to the SDA teaching of the Investigative Judgment is beyond the scope of this study, but anyone with a basic working knowledge of both aberrant doctrines will likely be able to make the connection. In part seven I’ll talk a bit about Lazarus and the Rich Man. Chris | ||
| Melissa Registered user Username: Melissa Post Number: 1568 Registered: 7-2003 |
Okay, for the non's in the bunch, did I get this straight that SDAs teach Moses was resurrected from the dead for the transfiguration? What kind of body did Elijah have? That's the first I ever heard of that teaching! I love your studies, Chris. They are very thorough and user friendly. | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 535 Registered: 3-2001 |
Melissa, Here it is, from "The Story of Redemption:
| ||
| Brian3 Registered user Username: Brian3 Post Number: 98 Registered: 8-2005 |
"Christ told Satan that He knew Moses had humbly repented of this one wrong, that no stain rested upon his character, and that his name in the heavenly book of records stood untarnished." (Tongue planted firmly in cheek)How could Christ have known this until after 1844 when the book was opened and the IJ began? He must have peeked! That's not fair! | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 682 Registered: 9-2006  |
Har de har har Brian3............. The story of River After River had studied Adventism diligently for five years he went up to the top of Mount Rainier and there he stood, after he had viewed Seattle to his satisfaction he laid his head down like a tired student and calmly froze in that position. Nevertheless the sun rose, he arose and he thawed out, and started back down saying har de har de har dee.... harrrrrr............................... 2nd River 1, page 2, book of tall tales. | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 750 Registered: 7-2004  |
Great question, Melisssa - I was also wondering what about Elijah (and Enoch). If Jesus was the only one to be raised from the dead with a perfect imperishable body, is it possible Elijah and Enoch could have been translated to a perfect imperishable body before Jesus, without seeing death (as SDA's teach)? It seems the Bible indicates they were taken without seeing death. And somewhere in the NT it says flesh and blood cannot be in heaven which assumes only perfect imperishable bodies or spirits "in Christ" can be there. If they didn't get perfect imperishable bodies yet, where are they? Great study, by the way--thanks, Chris! I've been saving it to a Word document for handy reference. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5714 Registered: 12-2003 |
Chris, wonderful study. I'll never forget the evening about seven years ago, early in our FAF Bible study, when we asked Gary Inrig to visit the group and teach on the subject of "death". He mentioned Moses' appearance at the Mt of Transfiguration as an evidence that the dead do not cease to exist. We all stared at him, and someone said, "But Moses was resurrected." I will NEVER forget the befuddled look on Gary's face as he asked us all, "Where do you get that idea? The Bible does not say Moses was resurrected." We all sat in stunned silence for a moment, digesting that piece of information. I finally said, "Oh, my goodness...I think we just stumbled onto another 'Ellenism'." The Bible just doesn't comment on the bodily characteristics of Enoch and Elijah. Obviously God took them without seeing death. I think we have to hold this a bit non-dogmatically, but if salvation is sure for all those who place their faith in God and His promises and in the blood of Christ—even before the cross—God can save alive an Enoch or an Elijah. I believe the really significant thing about Jesus being the firstfruit is that He conquered death and forever destroyed its power. He also forever destroyed the curse and power of sin. He is the Lamb slain from the creation of the world, and the salvation of every saved human from Adam and Eve onward is because of Jesus' once-for-all sacrifice which mends the rip of sin that tore the universe assunder. Colleen | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1291 Registered: 7-2003 |
I am so NOT dogmatic about this because we just don’t know much about the state in which Enoch and Elijah were taken to Heaven. You can take my comments on this with a large grain of salt because it is conjecture, at best. I offer these merely for the sake of discussion, please feel free to disregard. There is a school of thought that says that at death OT saints did not enter immediately into the presence of the Lord, but went instead to Sheol. Sheol can be thought of as kind of a spiritual holding “place” for the departed. For the wicked it is a foretaste of Hell, but for the OT saint it was a place of rest and comfort, a foretaste of Heaven. According to this school of thought, after the Jesus’ resurrection, He set the believing captives free from Sheol and ushered them into the very presence of God. Since the resurrection of Christ, all believers have gone immediately into the presence of the Lord at death and are not in Sheol. Unbelievers continue to go to Sheol to await final judgment and Hell. For the record, not all biblical scholars agree with this view of Sheol however. If you believe the school of thought outlined above, then what *MIGHT* have been different about Enoch and Elijah is that God sovereignly chose to take them immediately into His presence without going to Sheol. In this way, Enoch and Elijah may have foreshadowed the gift that would be given to NT saints. Under this view they would not necessarily have a resurrection body, but would be with the Lord in spirit awaiting the final resurrection just as is the case with NT saints. I want to stress again that this is speculation, offered for whatever it may or may not be worth. I would also point out that just because someone is shown what appears to be a visual representation of a spiritual being, it does not necessarily mean that that being possesses a physical body. There are many times when angels appear in visual ways to people and at times even appear to have physical dimensions and yet we know that angels are not physical, but spiritual. An angelophany appears to be a sovereign act of God. We see times when God provides a visual representation of His glory and yet God is not physical, but spirit. A few examples would include the burning bush, God showing His “back” to Moses, and the dove descending at Jesus’ baptism. We could also point out that the witch of Endor was shown enough of a visual representation of Samuel that she was able to describe him and yet Samuel was most definitely not resurrected. So the fact that the disciples see visual representations of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration does not necessarily mean that Moses and Elijah had permanent physical bodies. Their transfiguration appearance may have been a sovereign act of God similar to an angelophany. Again, it’s all speculation. I agree with Colleen’s comments that the most significant thing about Jesus’ place as the firstfruits is the spiritual aspect of what He accomplished securing salvation, eternal life, and the promise of resurrection for all who believe in all time periods, both before and after the resurrection. However, as you can probably tell from my study, I lean towards the view that there was also something completely unique and precedent setting about His physical resurrection in a glorified body. I see this precedent setting event as being at least partially wrapped up in the concept of being the firstfruits from the dead. Because of this I do think it is somewhat problematic to have another person rising from the dead with a glorified resurrection body prior to the resurrection of Christ. However, I admit I may be thinking in too much of a linear, chronological western fashion. Perhaps my concept of “first” is too tied to a linear view of time. Chris | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 5718 Registered: 12-2003 |
Interesting, Chris. Yes, I also tend to agree with the idea that there was a bodily "firstfruits" significance in Jesus' resurrection. But since the facts of Enoch and Elijah are just not spelled out—I think we just can't know for sure! Interesting idea about Enoch and Elijah going to heaven instead of Sheol—it's easier for me to think of Enoch that way than Elijah, given the chariots of fire, and all. But then again, anything is possible with God! This idea would resolve the "firstfruits" dilemma. This is one of those issues about which I have to say to myself, "The Bible says what it says. I must believe what it says and let go of my need to figure it out!" Jesus was the firstfruits, and God took Elijah...and He's taking care of him some way! Interesting ideas and thoughts, Chris. Thank you. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 683 Registered: 9-2006 |
It's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so, that gets us into trouble. Mark Twain | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1292 Registered: 7-2003 |
Part VII I once went to see the Oscar winning film Gladiator with a SDA friend of mine. Near the beginning of the film we find out that the hero, Maximus, dreams of leaving the wars and returning to the life he loves of raising crops with his wife and son. Unfortunately, before he is able to return to the fields that he loves so much, his wife and son are murdered and he is made a gladiator slave. In the final scene, as Maximus lays dying in the Coliseum, we see an image of him walking through a field of ripe grain with his wife and son before him in the sunlight…….fade to black……… I was very impressed with Ridley Scott’s film which later won best picture. On the way out of the theater I remarked to my SDA friend how much I enjoyed the movie. His comment to me was, “I liked it right up until the point where it got into all that spiritualism. I couldn’t recommend it because of the spiritualism.” I was stunned. A well crafted film that managed to combine epic story-telling, action, and stunning cinematography had just been dismissed out of hand because of one beautifully artistic scene near the end. The entire movie was worthless because it promoted “spiritualism”. Had my friend said he disagreed with the idea that a polytheistic Roman who died apart from Christ would be in Heaven, then I could have heartily agreed with him. But that wasn’t why my friend was so offended. He was offended by the portrayal of conscious existence at death. I have run into this same attitude with close family members as well. Any art that so much as hints at conscious existence at death is written off as being either “spiritualism”, or more often, “satanic”. Perhaps I should not be surprised by this as I grew up believing that the idea of conscious existence at death was the first lie Satan ever told. So therefore any teacher, preacher, movie, song, TV show, or book that suggested a conscious existence at death must be satanic in so far as they were promoting Satan’s lie. But if conscious existence at death is Satan’s lie and those who teach it are false teachers, what does that say about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Jesus tells a very interesting story in Luke, chapter 16.
Now I have heard some try to dismiss this passage by saying, “Well, it’s only a parable and the main point isn’t the state of the dead.” This may very well only be a parable, but if it is, then it is the only recorded parable of Jesus where he uses a name for one of the characters. Because of this, many commentators believe that Jesus is recounting actual events involving people some in the crowd would have known. However, I’m fine with assuming that this is a parable. I also agree completely that the main point isn’t the state of the dead. However, neither of those points allow us to dismiss the significance of the illustration Jesus is using here. Assuming this is a parable, then we can say that Jesus’ parables ALWAYS made use of something TRUE from life to illustrate an even greater spiritual TRUTH. It just doesn’t work to say that Jesus was illustrating a truth by using a falsehood. Can you imagine Jesus saying, “You know that point I was making? Well, it was a true point, but the way I went about making it was absolutely false. In fact, I was using an illustration that is a satanic lie to make my point. My illustration is dangerous spiritualism, but the point is still valid.”? Why would Jesus say something that was completely false and thereby mislead generations of Christians? Why would he wait until the 1840s to raise up a group to correct the misconception he started over 1800 year’s before? That’s a long time to leave Christians confused and misled by a satanic illustration. It almost feels like blasphemy to write the paragraph I did above, and yet that’s essentially what those who try to explain away this passage are saying when you peel away all their layers of double talk. We’re talking about God in the flesh. We’re talking about the greatest teacher, preacher, and prophet to ever walk among us. This is the illustration He chose and the people in His illustration are conscious and communicative at death. If we accuse other teachers and preachers of spiritualism and promoting the lies of Satan when they say such things, should we accuse Jesus of the same thing? Well, I guess one might if they were consistent, but it would be a grave mistake. This isn’t “spiritualism”. It reflects a spiritual reality that Christ knew to be true and the rest of the Bible confirms. Although I would not want to make a passage like this the primary source of my doctrine, Jesus’ illustration fits perfectly with the rest of His teaching and the didactic teaching of His apostles so I can accept this story as representing spiritual reality. I don’t need or want to explain it away and dismiss it. I believe we have been guilty of falsely accusing some of our Christian brothers and sisters of spiritualism for preaching and teaching things that the Bible itself preaches and teaches. I know I have to personally repent of such accusations that I have made. My accusations and judgments were made out of my own ignorance, but I bear the responsibility for that ignorance. Now that I know what the Bible teaches on this subject, I can now watch films that depict a conscious existence at death without becoming angry and agitated. I may not agree with every theological implication in the way it is presented, but I can at least enjoy the story for its artistic merit without fearing a satanic deception. I personally believe that at death I will be consciously with the Lord awaiting the resurrection of my perfect imperishable body. I don’t know exactly this means or what it will be like, but perhaps it will be a little like Ridley Scott’s vision of walking through a beautiful field of ripened grain, surrounded by sunlight and loved ones. I hope this study has been helpful. I’ve certainly enjoyed putting it together. Now that we’re done with the study, please let me know if there are additional questions or items for discussion. Thank you for reading! Chris | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 684 Registered: 9-2006 |
Thanks for the study Chris, it has been very helpful indeed. | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 3565 Registered: 3-2004  |
Chris, I will print this off and read it at my leisure so I can learn better. Thanks for all your hard work. I want to absorb everything all at once and know it afterward. Can't do it that way. Guess I will take every thing I want to know one step at a time. God teaching is so awesome. Diana | ||
| Doug222 Registered user Username: Doug222 Post Number: 536 Registered: 3-2001 |
Great study Chris. You approached the topic in a very thorough and logical manner. I too plan to save the study as a Word document so that I can refer back to it. Are you an attorney by chance? Doug (Message edited by Doug222 on April 21, 2007) |
