"Soul Sleep"; Penal Substitutionary Atonement

[BobRyan]

You missed my point. In the parable, Abraham, the rich man and Lazarus were all conscious even though their bodies were dead and in the grave. If everyone believed in "soul sleep" would not that parable have been entirely out of sorts and ignored?

In Luke 16 Christ argues for the very thing some here deny which is "If they will not listen to MOSES neither will they listen though one RISES from the DEAD" --

And so ignoring Christ's entire point for the parable - and ignoring all the elements in that Parable where Abraham is sovereign of all the dead saints, and prayers to the dead etc... you ask if it is not the case that Parables must all be true in their various details in order to carry a point.

Well -- let's start with the parable of Judges 9 - regarding sentient plants!

In Judges 9
7 And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you.
8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.
9 But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
10 And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and reign over us.
11 But the fig tree said unto them, Should I forsake my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?
12 Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over us.
13 And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
14 Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou, and reign over us.
15 And the bramble said unto the trees, If in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow: and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.

Your argument is that all the details -- or at least the foundation of the parable "talking trees, a government of trees, negotiation between plants" must be true - or nobody will "believe" the moral point that is being made via parable.

That idea never worked in all of scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

I asked you to deal with the "proof" of the future resurrection that Christ gives in Matt 22 -- proof that requires soul sleep at the very least to "PROVE" the future resurrection and you simply ignored or sidestepped the request. Asking instead that we deal with Luke 16. But as I have explained - Luke 16 is a parable EVEN by the standards of well known Bible scholars that DO believe in the immortal soul having consciousness in death.

And I have two big reasons why they admit that it is a parable.... details IN the text itself point this out. And you also ignored that.

If we are going to have a serious discussion about the doctrine at hand - it has to be in good faith - not just casting about looking for something - but dealing with the details that come up in the discussion.

 

[Dave-W]

Your argument is that all the details -- or at least the foundation of the parable "talking trees, a government of trees, negotiation between plants" must be true - or nobody will "believe" the moral point that is being made via parable.

That idea never worked in all of scripture.

There is about 1500 years between Judges and the Gospels. You need to look at how parables were used and understood in the first century ad and not how they were understood in 1400 bc.

Brad Young has a good book on the parables that IMO you may find very helpful.

 

[BobRyan]

There is about 1500 years between Judges and the Gospels. You need to look at how parables were used and understood in the first century ad and not how they were understood in 1400 bc.

Brad Young has a good book on the parables that IMO you may find very helpful.

That creative invention looks a bit contrived "inserting" a wall where no wall exists.

"This part of the Bible does not apply because it would be inconvenient to the point I am making" is an argument that we do find from time to time.
But i do not find it compelling for the objective unbiased Bible student.

Do you have some Bible proof that Parables changed - so that instead of Judges 9 and Luke 16 using the same principle for parables - they are "by definition" required not to be compatible at all??

Or is that just made up??

Notice that Christ enjoys quoting Moses?? Mark 7:6-13 as "sola scriptura proof" that the Jews of his day were in error?

Christ was not using a "toss scripture out the window" model.

 

[Dave-W]

Young explores the use of parables by the 1st century bc sages Hillel and Shammai. (both of whom may have still been alive and in the group the young Jesus met at the temple at age 12)

Edited to add:

First Fruits of Zion (ffoz.org) also says a lot about how parables were used in the first century in their Torah Club Commentaries that cover the gospels. (which I believe is volume 4)

Here is their statement about the parables:

http://tv.ffoz.org/a-promise-of-what-is-to-come/speaking-in-parables.html

It may be surprising to many Christians that the use of parables was not unique to Jesus but was rather a Jewish literary art form that had been developed over centuries. Viewers will learn in episode eighteen that Jesus used parables not as riddles but stories to help clarify his points. Jesus’ parables attempted to make it easier for his listeners to grasp his words. Like the other rabbis of his day, Messiah used parables to serve as simple explanations and illustrations to help us understand his message about the kingdom.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

What I've noticed Dave, is that Bob is supplying scriptural evidence for our belief while you are citing speculation, theory and non biblical reference. Maybe you could try providing some scripture to back up your claim of immortality of the soul... other than the well refuted parable of Lazarus. Remember, on the witness of two or three is something established.

 

[BobRyan]

What I've noticed Dave, is that Bob is supplying scriptural evidence for our belief while you are citing speculation, theory and non biblical reference. Maybe you could try providing some scripture to back up your claim of immortality of the soul... other than the well refuted parable of Lazarus. Remember, on the witness of two or three is something established.

And it is not at all clear that this statement quoted in Dave's post -

"It may be surprising to many Christians that the use of parables was not unique to Jesus but was rather a Jewish literary art form that had been developed over centuries. Viewers will learn in episode eighteen that Jesus used parables not as riddles but stories to help clarify his points. Jesus’ parables attempted to make it easier for his listeners to grasp his words. Like the other rabbis of his day, Messiah used parables to serve as simple explanations and illustrations to help us understand his message about the kingdom."

provides any evidence at all that Christ's parables are totally out of line with the parable that we find in Judges 9 regarding the "trees taking a king".

So not sure what the point was for that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

24 ""And he cried out and said, " Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'

Abraham is appealed to - as in authority. Very acceptable mythology (parable) to Jews of Christ's day.

Burton Coffman
http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016
Verse 24
And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.

Father Abraham ...
Here is found the absolute necessity for seeing this as a parable; for Abraham himself, like all the saints in death, is in the place here called "Abraham's bosom." Abraham is therefore a type of God who presides over both Paradise and the place of the wicked in Hades. This, of course, negates any support that might be supposed in this connection for praying to departed saints. Besides that, as Wesley said:

It cannot be denied but here in Scripture is the precedent of praying to departed saints. But who is it that prays, and with what success? Will anyone who considers this be found copying after him? F39

===

Matthew Henry on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16

“As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious.”
…
Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention, and therefore we must not hence infer that any one can befriend us if we lie under the displeasure of our Lord, but that, in the general, we must so lay out what we have in works of piety and charity as that we may meet it again with comfort on the other side death and the grave.
…
This parable is not like Christ's other parables, in which spiritual things are represented by similitudes borrowed from worldly things,

http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016
=================

Albert Barnes on the parable found in Luke 16 –

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

Verse 19. There was a certain rich man. Many have supposed that our Lord here refers to a real history, and gives an account of some man who had lived in this manner; but of this there is no evidence. The probability is that this narrative is to be considered as a parable, referring not to any particular case which had actually happened, but teaching that such cases might happen. The design of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation.

…

Abraham's bosom. This is a phrase taken from the practice of reclining at meals, where the head of one lay on the bosom of another, and the phrase therefore denotes intimacy and friendship. See Barnes "Matthew 23:6". See Barnes "John 13:23". See Barnes "John 21:20". The Jews had no doubt that Abraham was in paradise. To say that Lazarus was in his bosom was therefore the same as to say that he was admitted to heaven and made happy there.

…

Verse 24. Father Abraham. The Jews considered it a signal honour that Abraham was their father--that is, that they were descendants from him. Though this man was now in misery, yet he seems not to have abandoned the idea of his relation to the father of the faithful. The Jews supposed that departed spirits might know and converse with each other. See Lightfoot on this place. Our Saviour speaks in conformity with that prevailing opinion; and as it was not easy to convey ideas about the spiritual world without some such representation, he therefore speaks in the language which was usual in his time. We are not, however, to suppose that this was literally true, but only that it was designed to represent more clearly the sufferings of the rich man in hell.
=================================

Dr Douglas Finkbeiner
Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary

1. Support for identifying this pericope as a parable– the literary argument–
note the usage of “a certain man” in 16:1 and two of the other example
stories (10:30; 12:16). I find this argument to be overwhelmingly
persuasive.

*Adherents– Both leading commentaries on Luke (Bock, Green, Nolland,
Marshall, Stein) and texts on parables (Hultgren, Blomberg, Sider,
Wenham, Young, Bailey, Pentecost, Kistemaker) describe it as a parable.

http://seminary.cbs.edu/content/events/nlc/2004/papers/15-FINKBEINER.pdf

======================================

R.C Sproul

http://books.google.com/books?id=80...Zhk9vUu&sig=ABAbb_H4Ct9QPiCQ34IvdCZ3Pns&hl=en

pg 146 – « Book : Surprised by Suffering »

“What glimpses the Bible does give to the intermediate state strongly suggests a state of alert consciousness. Though it (Luke 16:20-31) is a parable that cannot be forced too far… “
====================================================

 

[Dave-W]

Of course it is a parable. Not my point.

My point is that parables all had a root in reality. People planting and reaping. Rich lords leaving their administrators to properly invest their funds during his absence. People cleaning their homes to find a lost item.

But if there truly is a "soul sleep" that renders one unconscious between physical death and final resurrection, then this parable enters the realm of the unreal - bordering on a lie.

If it was just a Jewish myth - then why did the Lord support it by crafting this parable in that form?

 

[Dave-W]

that Christ's parables are totally out of line with the parable that we find in Judges 9 regarding the "trees taking a king".

So not sure what the point was for that.

The point for that was that 1400 years is a LONG time and the usage changed.

 

[BobRyan]

The point for that was that 1400 years is a LONG time and the usage changed.

lf we "invent new rules" as often as we wish saying that all the scripture that debunks us i s"1400 years old" then we need not pay any attention to the NT - that is "2000 years old" -- we can just start making stuff up on the spot no such thing as "sola scriptura testing" --

Yet in Mark 7:6-13 Christ takes 1400 year old material and claims that the Jews are accountable to it - 1400 years later

 

[BobRyan]

24 ""And he cried out and said, " Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'

Abraham is appealed to - as in authority. Very acceptable mythology (parable) to Jews of Christ's day.

Burton Coffman
http://www.studylight.org/com/bcc/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016
Verse 24
And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame.

Father Abraham ...
Here is found the absolute necessity for seeing this as a parable; for Abraham himself, like all the saints in death, is in the place here called "Abraham's bosom." Abraham is therefore a type of God who presides over both Paradise and the place of the wicked in Hades. This, of course, negates any support that might be supposed in this connection for praying to departed saints. Besides that, as Wesley said:

It cannot be denied but here in Scripture is the precedent of praying to departed saints. But who is it that prays, and with what success? Will anyone who considers this be found copying after him? F39

===

Matthew Henry on the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16

“As the parable of the prodigal son set before us the grace of the gospel, which is encouraging to us all, so this sets before us the wrath to come, and is designed for our awakening; and very fast asleep those are in sin that will not be awakened by it. The Pharisees made a jest of Christ's sermon against worldliness; now this parable was intended to make those mockers serious.”
…
Parables must not be forced beyond their primary intention, and therefore we must not hence infer that any one can befriend us if we lie under the displeasure of our Lord, but that, in the general, we must so lay out what we have in works of piety and charity as that we may meet it again with comfort on the other side death and the grave.
…
This parable is not like Christ's other parables, in which spiritual things are represented by similitudes borrowed from worldly things,

http://www.studylight.org/com/mhc-com/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016
=================

Albert Barnes on the parable found in Luke 16 –

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=lu&chapter=016

Verse 19. There was a certain rich man. Many have supposed that our Lord here refers to a real history, and gives an account of some man who had lived in this manner; but of this there is no evidence. The probability is that this narrative is to be considered as a parable, referring not to any particular case which had actually happened, but teaching that such cases might happen. The design of the narrative is to be collected from the previous conversation.

…

Abraham's bosom. This is a phrase taken from the practice of reclining at meals, where the head of one lay on the bosom of another, and the phrase therefore denotes intimacy and friendship. See Barnes "Matthew 23:6". See Barnes "John 13:23". See Barnes "John 21:20". The Jews had no doubt that Abraham was in paradise. To say that Lazarus was in his bosom was therefore the same as to say that he was admitted to heaven and made happy there.

…

Verse 24. Father Abraham. The Jews considered it a signal honour that Abraham was their father--that is, that they were descendants from him. Though this man was now in misery, yet he seems not to have abandoned the idea of his relation to the father of the faithful. The Jews supposed that departed spirits might know and converse with each other. See Lightfoot on this place. Our Saviour speaks in conformity with that prevailing opinion; and as it was not easy to convey ideas about the spiritual world without some such representation, he therefore speaks in the language which was usual in his time. We are not, however, to suppose that this was literally true, but only that it was designed to represent more clearly the sufferings of the rich man in hell.
=================================

Dr Douglas Finkbeiner
Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary

1. Support for identifying this pericope as a parable– the literary argument–
note the usage of “a certain man” in 16:1 and two of the other example
stories (10:30; 12:16). I find this argument to be overwhelmingly
persuasive.

*Adherents– Both leading commentaries on Luke (Bock, Green, Nolland,
Marshall, Stein) and texts on parables (Hultgren, Blomberg, Sider,
Wenham, Young, Bailey, Pentecost, Kistemaker) describe it as a parable.

http://seminary.cbs.edu/content/events/nlc/2004/papers/15-FINKBEINER.pdf

======================================

R.C Sproul

http://books.google.com/books?id=80...Zhk9vUu&sig=ABAbb_H4Ct9QPiCQ34IvdCZ3Pns&hl=en

pg 146 – « Book : Surprised by Suffering »

“What glimpses the Bible does give to the intermediate state strongly suggests a state of alert consciousness. Though it (Luke 16:20-31) is a parable that cannot be forced too far… “
====================================================

Of course it is a parable. Not my point.

Indeed. that "Luke 16 is a parable" detail was "my point" it was not yours. I agree --

Of course it is a parable. Not my point.

My point is that parables all had a root in reality. [/quote]

Just not the details - the trees did not actually elect a king and Abraham is not in charge of the dead nor can prayers to the dead get things done for us.

The "lesson" is -- "If they do not listen to Moses NEITHER will they listen though one rises from the dead" -- Luke 16:31

Or put it another way "if they do not listen to that 1400 year old scripture - neither will they listen though one rises from the dead".


but prayers to the dead, all the back and forth between the dead Abraham and the dead rich man - none of it happened.

But if there truly is a "soul sleep" that renders one unconscious between physical death and final resurrection, then this parable enters the realm of the unreal

Just as "trees electing a king" is "unreal".
Just as "prayers to the dead" is "unreal"
Just as "Abraham in sovereign control over all dead saints" is "unreal"


In the case of the rich man and Lazarus - the rich and the poor do exist. They both die. they both will face the judgment and for those who were cruel to others - their only "heaven" is the one they get in "this life" - furthermore they will not be warned away from their course of sin - if they refuse to listen to scripture "even old scripture".

Those "basics" remain "real".

If it was just a Jewish myth - then why did the Lord support it by crafting this parable in that form?

1. He was out to prove the point - "If they do not listen to Moses NEITHER will they listen though one rises from the dead" -- Luke 16:31

2. They had just rejected a long string of parables and so Christ was now giving them one they were bound to take hook-line-and-sinker. One where Abraham is sovereign of all saints in heaven. One where Abraham decides who will be raised to life and who will not. One where Abraham "is the reward" of all good people.

Not at all realistic -- but details the Jews could hardly run away from.

 

[Dave-W]

lf we "invent new rules" as often as we wish saying that all the scripture that debunks us i s"1400 years old" then we need not pay any attention to the NT - that is "2000 years old" -- we can just start making stuff up on the spot no such thing as "sola scriptura testing"

Sola Scriptura is a bogus calvinist idea to begin with. (ok - yeah - Luther too)
Prima Scriptura is more true to your Wesleyan roots.

All scripture must be interpreted by the understanding of the writer and the original audience. (original context)

Now of course the Pentatuch that Moses wrote some 4500 years ago is still binding (at least for Jews). But we must be careful to not put a modern spin on it. Modern application? maybe.

But that could ONLY be arrived at after a careful consideration of the original context.

So in taking the parables in the Gospels and comparing them to a parable in Joshua, how had the cultural understanding changed over that millennium and a half?

Perhaps no one can say for sure what the cultural understandings were in Joshua's day. But a LOT has been written about Jewish culture in the late 2nd temple period and the reason I referred you to Young is that he has done extensive research on that period and the main sages/rabbis of the first century BC.

 

[Dave-W]

One where Abraham is sovereign of all saints in heaven. One where Abraham decides who will be raised to life and who will not. One where Abraham "is the reward" of all good people.

You are reading in WAYYYY too much influence for Abraham in that parable.

 

[BobRyan]

You are reading in WAYYYY too much influence for Abraham in that parable.

until you read the parable and notice all those details

Luke 16
22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and *saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham *said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

 

[BobRyan]

Sola Scriptura is a bogus calvinist idea to begin with. (ok - yeah - Luther too)
Prima Scriptura is more true to your Wesleyan roots.

All doctrine and tradition - tested by scripture - instead of "throw out all scripture older than 1400 years from the time that you live" -- as I am sure you will agree.

That is basic to the Protestant Reformation.

So in taking the parables in the Gospels and comparing them to a parable in Joshua, how had the cultural understanding changed over that millennium and a half?

Not nearly as much as in the last 2000 years.

Still - we use the Bible to test all doctrine, tradition etc.

Still Jesus used that same 1400 year old OT text in Mark 7:6-13 to hammer the church tradition of His own day.

 

[Dave-W]

All doctrine and tradition - tested by scripture - instead of "throw out all scripture older than 1400 years from the time that you live" -- as I am sure you will agree.

That is basic to the Protestant Reformation.

Yes we use the bible. BUT we also use the cultural understanding of the day; and that throws out sola.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes we use the bible. BUT we also use the cultural understanding of the day; and that throws out sola.

We never claim that the Bible is to be ignored because we have culture the trumps the Bible.

Had that been an option -- the Jews could have used it in Mark 7


Mark 7
6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Let not forget what Jesus was trying to get across here to the listeners... first of all, Greek mythology and customs were very much a part of Jewish thinking. Just as Persian and Babylonian culture were. The idea of life after death and an eternity burning in hades was Greek and would have been understood if not believed by a lot of the inhabitants of the time. Secondly, the parable was used to strike at the prejudice that the Jews had amongst themselves, particularly towards the Samaritans. The rich ruler represented the Jewish leaders and Lazurus was the outcast of society. What Jesus was illustrating was that those that are least will be greatest in the life to come and that those that think themselves superior will be cast out and punished.

 

[BobRyan]

Christ was dealing with a hostile group according to the text of Luke 16
"
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God."

None of that hostile audience thought that Christ was a cosmic viewer of heaven and hell. All of them thought he was telling a parable and the reason they were happy at all - in the least - to hear it was that it put Abraham in a rather flattering position and thus very acceptable to them to sit in on such a grand bit of storytelling about Abraham.

None of that hostile group were thinking to themselves "well you are God after all - so you should know if that is what happened in heaven and hell -- we will just take your word on it".

Nothing of that sort was going on with that hostile group - and I think we all can agree on that.