I wrote this message to a friend who has been asking me about soul-sleep. Thought I would post this hear to see if anybody cares to add there opinion.
As somebody who holds annihilation as the most probable teaching of scripture, I do not view this story as a problem exegetically to my belief as it deals with the immediate state of the dead after death and not the final state after the judgement. Furthermore, i will say that the fact it is a parable does not necessarily prove the torment of the wicked in the immediate state is false, just very, very, unlikely.
The story comes at the end of a series of []other parables Jesus was telling in Luke 14-15 in the presence of the Pharisees who were trying to insult him (Luke 11:53-54, 15:2)
Like other parables, it was introduced with a simliar form "There was a certain rich man" compared to "a certain man had two sons" (Luke 15:11) and"A certain man made a great supper, and bade many" (Luke 14:16)
Jesus would only talk to the Pharisees and crowds in parables (mat 13:34). If Jesus wanted to teach spiritual truth it seemed he would do it in a teaching setting like the sermon on the mount or the Olivet Discourse. Some might say that it could not be a parable because Jesus used a name in the story (Lazarus) This is a logically flawed argument. Say If I have 5 children and 4 have brown eyes and 1 with blue. Does anybody say the child with blue eyes cannot be mine because the other children have brown eyes? Jesus never gave a definition of a parable as a completely fictitious story without named characters.[]Furthermore, Jesus used the name Lazarus for an exact purpose as we shall see.
The purpose of a parable is to teach a certain truth. The story does not have to be true or possible for the main point to be made.
I believe the this parable was told to relay a few different truths.
-to disclaim the false belief that being rich was a sign of Gods approval
-to confirm that Existance did not end at death and people would receive their due recompense.
-to show that the Jewish rulers, priests, and those of that held to the theological systems of the day that based their beliefs on tradition and not scripture, would not believe Jesus, even if someone were to be resurrected.
There have been different interpretations of the purpose of the parable, whether in the Tradionalist or annihilationist camp. Some think it was a simple moral lesson about the responsibility of those who have money. I don't think that is true. The Rich man is not painted as overly ungenerous as such, nor was the beggar as particularily faithful. Claiming that the basis of salvation on riches is a denial[bless and do not curse]of Sola Fide. All that is said in the story is that the beggar was comforted and the Rich man was in torments. I believe because there is an absence of knowledge about the faithfulness of either parties, the intended meaning was to simply disprove that Riches and power were the sign of approval from God.
[bless and do not curse]Some people think the Rich man resembles Israel as a whole, and the begger as the Gentiles. Most likely comparing how Lazarus was hungry for the scraps of food that fell from the rich mans plate (Luke 16:21) to the Samaritan woman who asked for Jesus healing of her daughter, and made the analogy of receiving the crumbs from the lords plate as a dog. I am not bothered by such an interpretation. The Rich Man I believe was implied as denying spiritual truth which resulted in his torment at death, and that certainly would have to be the case if it were a true account. Even though there were exceptional cases such as the Roman centurion, the Samaritan, and Cornelius, I think the gentile world was largely projected as NOT seeking God (see Romans 9:24). The story shows the men dying at the same time and ending up with different eternal future states. The Gentiles would not receive the truth until later when Israel had rejected the messiah and repentance was granted to the Gentiles (acts 11:18).
Though the view perhaps is somewhat plausible despite some of it's difficulties, I think there is a better interpretation. One that dealt with the denial of Jesus in a much nearer and deliberate way than the jews as a whole. I believe the story was being told to condemn both the temple priests and rulers, the pharisees and the sadduces. The story has a dynamic that condemns each group as each group would receive and interpret it. The interpretation I hold to is that Jesus used the High Priest Caiaphas and his friend Lazarus as characters in the story. Though the analogy is not perfect between them, it seems that the connections are undeniable once understood. I don't think parables or analogies are 100 percent accurate of what they are representing. ]In the case of Jesus friend Lazarus, there is a connection made between him and leprosy which could be analogus to the sores that covered the body of the Lazarus in the story whom the dogs licked. Some people think Lazarus is the same person as the person Simon the Leper mentioned in the bible. Lazarus sisters Mary and Martha ]did abide in the home of Simon the Leper. So it might be plausible that Lazarus was him indeed. None the less, there is the connection. I dont think Lazarus was a beggar. He was part of the household. But as I said before, the parable does not follow to a T what its representing. The real and most crucial connection is that both Lazarus's were spoke in the context of being raised from he dead, which is the main point of the parable.
The Connection between the Rich man and Caiaphas is suttle, and not definitively deduced from scripture itself but the case made from the historical account outside the bible is a stunning one indeed. First off, the description of the linen robes he wore are similar to the outfit the priests wore as described in exodus 39. Though the fine linen was something in common with all wealthy Israelites. The historical account by the writer of Josephus gives the relations of Caiaphas that link him to the rich man in the story. The rich man asks Abraham to send somebody back from the dead: "then[bless and do not curse]he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment."
The connections between Caiaphas the high prelate are these:
-the fathers house is the jewish temple
-the father is Caiaphas father-in-law]Ananias Ben Seth
-the five brothers are Caiaphas 5 brothers in law
Here is the account from Jospehus work "The antiquity of the Jews"
"Now the report goes, that this elder Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. . . ." (Antiquities, book XX, chapter IX,
Ananias Ben Seth was High-Priest of the temple from 6-15 AD and each of his five sons and son-in-law Caiaphus would serve as high-priest in the temple. The last being]Ananias Ben]Ananias In 63 AD whom is credited as having James the Just executed by stoning.
The term "brother-in-law" is not used in the bible, so it is understandable to use the common term "brother"
The final connection however can be seen in scripture as the parable is fulfilled in the denial of Lazarus resurrection, and Caiaphas personal involvement.
Luke 16:31 ... If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
John 11:44-53
]44And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
]45Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
]46But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
]47Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
]48If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
]49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
]50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation e]51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
]52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
]53Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
As somebody who holds annihilation as the most probable teaching of scripture, I do not view this story as a problem exegetically to my belief as it deals with the immediate state of the dead after death and not the final state after the judgement. Furthermore, i will say that the fact it is a parable does not necessarily prove the torment of the wicked in the immediate state is false, just very, very, unlikely.
The story comes at the end of a series of []other parables Jesus was telling in Luke 14-15 in the presence of the Pharisees who were trying to insult him (Luke 11:53-54, 15:2)
Like other parables, it was introduced with a simliar form "There was a certain rich man" compared to "a certain man had two sons" (Luke 15:11) and"A certain man made a great supper, and bade many" (Luke 14:16)
Jesus would only talk to the Pharisees and crowds in parables (mat 13:34). If Jesus wanted to teach spiritual truth it seemed he would do it in a teaching setting like the sermon on the mount or the Olivet Discourse. Some might say that it could not be a parable because Jesus used a name in the story (Lazarus) This is a logically flawed argument. Say If I have 5 children and 4 have brown eyes and 1 with blue. Does anybody say the child with blue eyes cannot be mine because the other children have brown eyes? Jesus never gave a definition of a parable as a completely fictitious story without named characters.[]Furthermore, Jesus used the name Lazarus for an exact purpose as we shall see.
The purpose of a parable is to teach a certain truth. The story does not have to be true or possible for the main point to be made.
I believe the this parable was told to relay a few different truths.
-to disclaim the false belief that being rich was a sign of Gods approval
-to confirm that Existance did not end at death and people would receive their due recompense.
-to show that the Jewish rulers, priests, and those of that held to the theological systems of the day that based their beliefs on tradition and not scripture, would not believe Jesus, even if someone were to be resurrected.
There have been different interpretations of the purpose of the parable, whether in the Tradionalist or annihilationist camp. Some think it was a simple moral lesson about the responsibility of those who have money. I don't think that is true. The Rich man is not painted as overly ungenerous as such, nor was the beggar as particularily faithful. Claiming that the basis of salvation on riches is a denial[bless and do not curse]of Sola Fide. All that is said in the story is that the beggar was comforted and the Rich man was in torments. I believe because there is an absence of knowledge about the faithfulness of either parties, the intended meaning was to simply disprove that Riches and power were the sign of approval from God.
[bless and do not curse]Some people think the Rich man resembles Israel as a whole, and the begger as the Gentiles. Most likely comparing how Lazarus was hungry for the scraps of food that fell from the rich mans plate (Luke 16:21) to the Samaritan woman who asked for Jesus healing of her daughter, and made the analogy of receiving the crumbs from the lords plate as a dog. I am not bothered by such an interpretation. The Rich Man I believe was implied as denying spiritual truth which resulted in his torment at death, and that certainly would have to be the case if it were a true account. Even though there were exceptional cases such as the Roman centurion, the Samaritan, and Cornelius, I think the gentile world was largely projected as NOT seeking God (see Romans 9:24). The story shows the men dying at the same time and ending up with different eternal future states. The Gentiles would not receive the truth until later when Israel had rejected the messiah and repentance was granted to the Gentiles (acts 11:18).
Though the view perhaps is somewhat plausible despite some of it's difficulties, I think there is a better interpretation. One that dealt with the denial of Jesus in a much nearer and deliberate way than the jews as a whole. I believe the story was being told to condemn both the temple priests and rulers, the pharisees and the sadduces. The story has a dynamic that condemns each group as each group would receive and interpret it. The interpretation I hold to is that Jesus used the High Priest Caiaphas and his friend Lazarus as characters in the story. Though the analogy is not perfect between them, it seems that the connections are undeniable once understood. I don't think parables or analogies are 100 percent accurate of what they are representing. ]In the case of Jesus friend Lazarus, there is a connection made between him and leprosy which could be analogus to the sores that covered the body of the Lazarus in the story whom the dogs licked. Some people think Lazarus is the same person as the person Simon the Leper mentioned in the bible. Lazarus sisters Mary and Martha ]did abide in the home of Simon the Leper. So it might be plausible that Lazarus was him indeed. None the less, there is the connection. I dont think Lazarus was a beggar. He was part of the household. But as I said before, the parable does not follow to a T what its representing. The real and most crucial connection is that both Lazarus's were spoke in the context of being raised from he dead, which is the main point of the parable.
The Connection between the Rich man and Caiaphas is suttle, and not definitively deduced from scripture itself but the case made from the historical account outside the bible is a stunning one indeed. First off, the description of the linen robes he wore are similar to the outfit the priests wore as described in exodus 39. Though the fine linen was something in common with all wealthy Israelites. The historical account by the writer of Josephus gives the relations of Caiaphas that link him to the rich man in the story. The rich man asks Abraham to send somebody back from the dead: "then[bless and do not curse]he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment."
The connections between Caiaphas the high prelate are these:
-the fathers house is the jewish temple
-the father is Caiaphas father-in-law]Ananias Ben Seth
-the five brothers are Caiaphas 5 brothers in law
Here is the account from Jospehus work "The antiquity of the Jews"
"Now the report goes, that this elder Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. . . ." (Antiquities, book XX, chapter IX,
Ananias Ben Seth was High-Priest of the temple from 6-15 AD and each of his five sons and son-in-law Caiaphus would serve as high-priest in the temple. The last being]Ananias Ben]Ananias In 63 AD whom is credited as having James the Just executed by stoning.
The term "brother-in-law" is not used in the bible, so it is understandable to use the common term "brother"
The final connection however can be seen in scripture as the parable is fulfilled in the denial of Lazarus resurrection, and Caiaphas personal involvement.
Luke 16:31 ... If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
John 11:44-53
]44And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
]45Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
]46But some of them went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done.
]47Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
]48If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
]49And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
]50Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation e]51And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
]52And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
]53Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.
Last edited:
