David Bentley Hart on Hell

[Clare73]

You can’t just take one line out of context and then use that alone to say what it means.

The rich man asked for Lazarus to be raised from the dead to tell his brothers to repent.

So to answer your question of who rose from the dead...in this case...Lazarus. Who was raised from the dead by the Lord and the Pharisees still did not repent.

(and yes that may very well be a different Lazarus but it still did happen)

Why are you resisting the explanation?
It's not "one line out of context," it's every line consistent with the context.

Parallels:
Lazarus was a righteous man - v.22
Abraham's side = Paradise (Abraham's bosom) - v.23
Hades = Gehenna (hell) - v.23
rich man was an unrighteous man - v.23
Lazarus = Jesus - v.27
father's house = Israel - v.27
five brothers = Jewish leaders - v.28
Moses and the Prophets = Scripture - v.29
someone from the dead = Jesus - v.30
unrepentant brothers - v.30 = unbelieving Jewish leaders - v.31
someone rises from the dead = Jesus - v.31

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

Why are you resisting the explanation:

Parallels:
Lazarus was a righteous man - v.22
Abraham's side = Paradise (Abraham's bosom) - v.23
Hades = Gehenna (hell) - v.23
rich man was an unrighteous man - v.23
Lazarus = Jesus - v.27
father's house = Israel - v.27
five brothers = Jewish leaders - v.28
Moses and the Prophets = Scripture - v.29
someone from the dead = Jesus - v.30
someone rises from the dead = Jesus - v.31

I’m resisting the explanation because I believe you selectively chopped off a fragment of the entire story and disregarded the rest which includes the fact that the exact thing which the Lord said would happen (the Pharisees not repenting even after a man named Lazarus was raised from the dead) actually literally happened in favour of reading into the text an abstract symbolism which also changes the entire meaning from condemning the unrighteousness of the Jewish leaders who “tithe mint and cumin but ignore the weightier matters of justice and mercy” (again paraphrased) into solely a condemnation of not believing in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

in other words I think it’s a flawed explanation

 

[Clare73]

I’m resisting the explanation because I believe you selectively chopped off a fragment of the entire story and disregarded the rest

I provided 10 parallels which track very closely every facet of the parable and its context.

which includes the fact that the exact thing which the Lord said would happen (the Pharisees not repenting even after a man named Lazarus was raised from the dead) actually literally happened

Did it not literally happen that the religious leaders who had the testimony of Moses and Prophets regarding Jesus, rejected that testimony even though Jesus rose from the dead?

in favour of reading into the text an abstract symbolism which also changes the entire meaning from condemning the unrighteousness of the Jewish leaders who “tithe mint and cumin but ignore the weightier matters of justice and mercy” (again paraphrased) into solely a condemnation of not believing in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.

It isn't about not believing in the resurrection of Christ. . .it's about not believing in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior from the condemnation of sin.

in other words I think it’s a flawed explanation

Flawed explanations are just flawed explanations when you don't have something vested in another one. Then they are more than just another explanation, they threaten what you are vested in.

What's the vesting about?

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

I provided parallels which track very closely every facet of the parable and its context.

Did it not literally happen that the Jewish leaders who had the testimony of Moses and Prophets regarding Jesus, rejected that testimony even though Jesus rose from the dead?

Yes, among many other things they rejected from Moses and the prophets (including testifying against themselves that they are the sons of the ones who killed the prophets).

It isn't about not believing in the resurrection of Christ. . .it's about not believing in Jesus as the Messiah and Savior from the condemnation of sin.

And in this case the blatant sin of the rich man was allowing his brother to sit at his gate hungry and covered in sores while having no compassion.

Flawed explanations are just flawed explanations when you don't have something vested in another one. Then they are more than just another explanation, they threaten what you are vested in.

In this case I literally just think it’s flawed and insufficient and ignores a plain text reading.

For example you say the “five brothers” represent the leaders of Israel but Israel has 12 tribes and if there were going to be a clear explanation of a number of men used to represent the leaders of Israel why say five instead of twelve?

Also for example if “Lazarus raised from the dead” is actually mere symbolism for Jesus raised from the dead why did he use the exact name of the man he literally raised from the dead? Why not, for example, say the son of David as allegory for the Messiah?

 

[Clare73]

Yes, among many other things they rejected from Moses and the prophets (including testifying against themselves that they are the sons of the ones who killed the prophets).

And in this case the blatant sin of the rich man was allowing his brother to sit at his gate hungry and covered in sores while having no compassion.

And in the whole scheme of things, which is the greater offense to God, having no compassion, or denying his one and only Son?

In this case I literally just think it’s flawed and insufficient and ignores a plain text reading.

For example you say the “five brothers” represent the leaders of Israel

No. . .I said they are "Jewish leaders," which are not the "leaders of Israel," they are the religious leaders.

but Israel has 12 tribes and if there were going to be a clear explanation of a number of men used to represent the leaders of Israel why would they say five?

Also for example if “Lazarus raised from the dead” is actually mere symbolism for Jesus raised from the dead why did he use the exact name of the man he literally raised from the dead? Why not, for example, say the son of David as allegory for the Messiah?

Well, I'm glad you brought that up, because it is the heart of your problem here . .for the man Jesus raised from the dead was the brother of Martha and Mary.
Do you think he sat at the gate of the rich man "hungry and covered with sores"?

The brother of Martha and Mary is not the Lazarus of the parable, and is not the man who rose from the dead in the parable.
That man is Jesus, and the parable is about the unbelief of the religious leaders who had him killed.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

And in the whole scheme of things, which is the greater offense to God, having no compassion or denying his one and only Son?

Those things aren’t even different. No one can accept Jesus is Lord without having compassion. No one with compassion could truly reject the Lord once they understand who He is. Literally a summary of the entire Bible is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.” That’s the greatest commandment. (Luke 10:25-28; John 13:34-35).

"Jewish leaders" are not the "leaders of Israel," they are the religioss leaders.

Were there actually five though? Where does the symbolism of “five brothers” come in if it is a symbol rather than a fact? In other words, why add a specific number instead of just “my brothers?”

(in fairness that’s just a rhetorical question to demonstrate that it isn’t flawless symbolic representation unless there is an explanation as to the symbolism of the number five)

Well, now that you bring it up, the man Jesus raised from the dead was the brother of Martha and Mary.
Do you think he sat at the gate of the rich man hungry and covered with sores?

The brother of Martha and Mary is not the Lazarus of the parable, and is not the man who rose from the dead in the parable. That man is Jesus, and the parable is about the unbelief of the Jewish leaders who had him killed.

It’s actually interesting that you can’t see the parable of Lazarus and the rich man as pointing to the resurrection of Lazarus because of that but you do see it as pointing to the Lord who also wasn’t sitting outside a rich man’s gate covered in sores.

However this is probably one of those “now we see in part” things that probably doesn’t matter enough to argue about. I genuinely believe (without any “vested interest”) that your interpretation is flawed and I’m guessing you genuinely believe without any vested interest that my interpretation is flawed, so I hope we both use our understanding for the glory of God.

 

[Der Alte]

* * *
Were there actually five though? Where does the symbolism of “five brothers” come in if it is a symbol rather than a fact? In other words, why add a specific number instead of just “my brothers?”
(in fairness that’s just a rhetorical question to demonstrate that it isn’t flawless symbolic representation unless there is an explanation as to the symbolism of the number five)
It’s actually interesting that you can’t see the parable of Lazarus and the rich man as pointing to the resurrection of Lazarus because of that but you do see it as pointing to the Lord who also wasn’t sitting outside a rich man’s gate covered in sores.
However this is probably one of those “now we see in part” things that probably doesn’t matter enough to argue about. I genuinely believe (without any “vested interest”) that your interpretation is flawed and I’m guessing you genuinely believe without any vested interest that my interpretation is flawed, so I hope we both use our understanding for the glory of God.

…..The word “parable” is from the Greek word “παραβολή/parabole” which means to place or throw beside, to clarify/explain something unknown by comparing it to something known. All of the unquestioned “parables” have this comparison.
Jesus identified 5 parables as such. Others identified 26 parables as such.
…..The Lazarus/rich man account does not have the format of a parable there is no worldly situation which was or can be likened to heaven. There was no comparison.
It is not introduced as a parable and Jesus did not explain it later to His disciples.
…..None of the unquestioned parables refer to unreasonable, fictitious or imaginary events. All of the unquestioned parables refer to real life type events which had happened at some time in history; e.g. a widow found lost coins, a shepherd found a lost sheep, a wayward son squandered all of his inheritance.
…..All of the unquestioned parables refer to anonymous people, “a certain man,”” a certain widow,””a certain land owner,” etc. The Lazarus account names two specific people “Lazarus,” otherwise unknown, and Abraham, an actual historical person, whom the rich man refers to as “father Abraham.” If Abraham was not in the place Jesus said and did not say the words Jesus quoted, then Jesus lied.
All of the ECF who quoted/referred to the Lazarus and the rich man account considered it to be factual.

• Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.
Ireneaeus, [120-202 AD], was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John.
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [[formerly]] bestow even the crumbs [[which fell]] from his table.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
•Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1
On the Resurrection.
This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
•Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.]
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality . For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
•Tertullian Part First A Treatise On The Soul Chapter 57
9. Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul , has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.
•The Epistles Of Cyprian [A.D. 200-258] Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
• Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah [A.D. 260-312]
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence. ​

 

[ozso]

Luke 16:1 "There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods."

Luke 16:19 "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day"

So to start out there are two accounts, that start out with the same exact wording.

Lazarus is the Greek version of Eleazar.

Eliezer of Damascus was set to inherit everything Abraham owned, before the birth of Isaac.

It's suspected that Eliezer was a Gentile.

Lazarus eating crumbs from the rich man's table is similar to the Gentile woman saying
"Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”

 

[ozso]

Jeremiah 17:27 "But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched."

We know this was fulfilled that Judah did not hearken- they later went into captivity because of their idolotry, etc and Jerusalem was burned and destroyed.

II Chronicles 36:19 "And they burnt the house of God, and brake down the walls of Jerusalem, and burnt all the palaces thereof with fire, and destroyed all the goodly vessels thereof."


II Chronicles 36:20 "And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia:"

II Chronicles 36:21 "To fulfil the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her sabbaths: for as long as she lay desolate she kept sabbath, to fulfil threescore and ten years."


Jesus uses very much the same language that the propets did and often quoted them, etc, saying "Haven't you read"...

Even the garbage pit outside the Valley of Hinom eventually went out after the garbage was consumed. But it didn't go out until everything was consumed. Again, that's what a fire does.

The first time I read what the OT prophets wrote before impending destruction and captivity from Babylon, I was struck by the similarities in things Jesus said on the heels of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Jesus spoke of wailing and gnashing of teeth and now there's a Wailing Wall.

 

[fhansen]

What do we think about this?

I think we’ve found yet another man and his Bible.

 

[ozso]

You can’t just take one line out of context and then use that alone to say what it means.

The rich man asked for Lazarus to be raised from the dead to tell his brothers to repent.

So to answer your question of who rose from the dead...in this case...Lazarus. Who was raised from the dead by the Lord and the Pharisees still did not repent.

(and yes that may very well be a different Lazarus but it still did happen)

Very interesting observation.

Definitely not the same Lazarus, but possibly why Jesus chose that name. Jesus tended to rub the Pharisees noses in their failings.

 

[Saint Steven]

Very interesting observation.

Definitely not the same Lazarus, but possibly why Jesus chose that name. Jesus tended to rub the Pharisees noses in their failings.

Interesting how people demand us to reconcile the half dozen scriptures they have on hell, but they refuse to reconcile the two dozen scriptures we bring on Ultimate Redemption. Claiming we are quoting out of context.

It's a matter of perspective. If you believe that the Bible is God's plan for global genocide, then yes, the verses we quote seem out of context, but if you view the Bible as God's plan for redemption, then the verses about hell are out of context.

Now, ironically those who believe in hell also believe that the Bible is God's plan for redemption. This is cognitive dissonance. The two do not coincide.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Interesting how people demand us to reconcile the half dozen scriptures they have on hell, but they refuse to reconcile the two dozen scriptures we bring on Ultimate Redemption. Claiming we are quoting out of context.

It's a matter of perspective. If you believe that the Bible is God's plan for global genocide, then yes, the verses we quote seem out of context, but if you view the Bible as God's plan for redemption, then the verses about hell are out of context.

Now, ironically those who believe in hell also believe that the Bible is God's plan for redemption. This is cognitive dissonance. The two do not coincide.

In fact, since Jesus the Christ is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the whole world, universal and ultimate redemption IS the context.

 

[ozso]

…..The word “parable” is from the Greek word “παραβολή/parabole” which means to place or throw beside, to clarify/explain something unknown by comparing it to something known. All of the unquestioned “parables” have this comparison.
Jesus identified 5 parables as such. Others identified 26 parables as such.
…..The Lazarus/rich man account does not have the format of a parable there is no worldly situation which was or can be likened to heaven. There was no comparison.
It is not introduced as a parable and Jesus did not explain it later to His disciples.
…..None of the unquestioned parables refer to unreasonable, fictitious or imaginary events. All of the unquestioned parables refer to real life type events which had happened at some time in history; e.g. a widow found lost coins, a shepherd found a lost sheep, a wayward son squandered all of his inheritance.
…..All of the unquestioned parables refer to anonymous people, “a certain man,”” a certain widow,””a certain land owner,” etc. The Lazarus account names two specific people “Lazarus,” otherwise unknown, and Abraham, an actual historical person, whom the rich man refers to as “father Abraham.” If Abraham was not in the place Jesus said and did not say the words Jesus quoted, then Jesus lied.
All of the ECF who quoted/referred to the Lazarus and the rich man account considered it to be factual.

• Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.
Ireneaeus, [120-202 AD], was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John.
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [[formerly]] bestow even the crumbs [[which fell]] from his table.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
•Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1
On the Resurrection.
This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
•Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.]
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality . For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
•Tertullian Part First A Treatise On The Soul Chapter 57
9. Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul , has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.
•The Epistles Of Cyprian [A.D. 200-258] Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
• Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah [A.D. 260-312]
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence. ​

None of those excerpts say anything about eternal torment. As far as I know most Christian universalists believe in the existence of Hell. They just don't believe the Bible says there will be eternal torment.

 

[ozso]

Interesting how people demand us to reconcile the half dozen scriptures they have on hell, but they refuse to reconcile the two dozen scriptures we bring on Ultimate Redemption. Claiming we are quoting out of context.

It's a matter of perspective. If you believe that the Bible is God's plan for global genocide, then yes, the verses we quote seem out of context, but if you view the Bible as God's plan for redemption, then the verses about hell are out of context.

Now, ironically those who believe in hell also believe that the Bible is God's plan for redemption. This is cognitive dissonance. The two do not coincide.

It's always seemed to me that there must be cognitive dissonance involved. Like I said in my reply to Der Alte, most Christian universalists believe in Hell as far as I know. They just don't interpret it as an eternal torture chamber. Even many Christians who aren't universalists don't think of Hell in those terms.

 

[Clare73]

Interesting how people demand us to reconcile the half dozen scriptures they have on hell, but they refuse to reconcile the two dozen scriptures we bring on Ultimate Redemption. Claiming we are quoting out of context.

It's a matter of perspective.

Which perspective is simply a matter of belief or unbelief of Jesus' clear, plain and simple words in Mark 9:48, supported in his parable of Luke 16:19-31, which parable could not be mythical if he were presenting Biblical truth.

 

[Clare73]

Those things aren’t even different. No one can accept Jesus is Lord without having compassion. No one with compassion could truly reject the Lord once they understand who He is. Literally a summary of the entire Bible is “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and love your neighbour as yourself.” That’s the greatest commandment. (Luke 10:25-28; John 13:34-35).

Were there actually five though? Where does the symbolism of “five brothers” come in if it is a symbol rather than a fact? In other words, why add a specific number instead of just “my brothers?”

(in fairness that’s just a rhetorical question to demonstrate that it isn’t flawless symbolic representation unless there is an explanation as to the symbolism of the number five)

It’s actually interesting that you can’t see the parable of Lazarus and the rich man as pointing to the resurrection of Lazarus because of that but you do see it as pointing to the Lord who also wasn’t sitting outside a rich man’s gate covered in sores.

So what's the vested interest about here. . .mitigating the unbelief and rejection of the Messiah, even though he rose from the dead, which unbelief Jesus condemns there? It is in conformity with Jesus' practice, this being just one of the occasions.

 

[Der Alte]

None of those excerpts say anything about eternal torment. As far as I know most Christian universalists believe in the existence of Hell. They just don't believe the Bible says there will be eternal torment.

I was not responding to a post about eternal punishment. I was addressing a post about whether Lazarus and the rich man was a parable or factual. I think I addressed that in my first sentence. All of the ECF who quoted/referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.
But,

•Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).
"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment"
• (Second Clement ibid., 17:7)
"But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’".
•Ignatius of Antioch[a student of John]
"Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him" (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).
• Justin Martyr
"No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments"
• (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).
"We have been taught that only they may aim at immortality who have lived a holy and virtuous life near to God. We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire" (ibid., 21).
"[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons" (ibid., 52).
• The Martyrdom of Polycarp
"Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire"
• (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155]).
Mathetes
"When you know what is the true life, that of heaven; when you despise the merely apparent death, which is temporal; when you fear the death which is real, and which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the everlasting fire, the fire which will punish even to the end those who are delivered to it, then you will condemn the deceit and error of the world" (Letter to Diognetus 10:7 [A.D. 160]).
• Athenagoras
"[W]e [Christians] are persuaded that when we are removed from this present life we shall live another life, better than the present one. . . . Then we shall abide near God and with God, changeless and free from suffering in the soul . . . or if we fall with the rest [of mankind], a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere incidental work, that we should perish and be annihilated" (Plea for the Christians 31 [A.D. 177]).
• Theophilus of Antioch
"Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire" (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181])
• Irenaeus[Student of Polycarp a student of John]
"[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).
"The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ they will be damned forever" (ibid., 4:28:2).
• Tertullian
"After the present age is ended he will judge his worshipers for a reward of eternal life and the godless for a fire equally perpetual and unending"
• (Apology 18:3 [A.D. 197]).
"Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now, without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God, clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility" (ibid., 44:12–13).
• Hippolytus
"Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: ‘Just is your judgment!’ And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them" (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212]).
• Minucius Felix
"I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death. They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment. . . . Nor is there either measure nor end to these torments. That clever fire burns the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them" (Octavius 34:12–5:3 [A.D. 226]).
• Cyprian of Carthage
"An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life" (To Demetrian 24 [A.D. 252]).
• Lactantius
"[T]he sacred writings inform us in what manner the wicked are to undergo punishment. For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies; and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire, the nature of which is different from this fire of ours, which we use for the necessary purposes of life, and which is extinguished unless it be sustained by the fuel of some material. But that divine fire always lives by itself, and flourishes without any nourishment. . . . The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment. . . . Thus, without any wasting of bodies, which regain their substance, it will only burn and affect them with a sense of pain. But when [God] shall have judged the righteous, he will also try them with fire" (Divine Institutes 7:21 [A.D. 307]).
• Cyril of Jerusalem
"We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. … Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past" (Catechetical Lectures 18:19 [A.D. 350]).​

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

So what's the vested interest about here. . .mitigating the unbelief and rejection of the Messiah, even though he rose from the dead, which unbelief Jesus condemns there? It is in conformity with Jesus' practice, this is just one of the occasions.

Again I will say that I literally just have a different interpretation based on the evidence at hand. Because acceptance of Jesus as Messiah means accepting that Jesus is Messiah. Meaning he is anointed King and High Priest with all authority over heaven and earth.

“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? (Luke 6:46, NKJV)

Moses: “Stop being terrible people.”
The Prophets: “Stop being terrible people.”
Jesus: “Listen...”
Parable rich man: “Can you please send Lazarus to warn my brothers to stop being terrible people so they don’t end up here?”
Parable Abraham: “That won’t even help though.”
Jesus: raises Lazarus from the dead
Jewish Priests: literally plan to kill Lazarus so people don’t start to believe in Jesus

I think that synthesises what we were both saying as far as interpretation goes because while I don’t agree with your symbolic analysis I definitely agree that the Lord Jesus is the Messiah.

Believing in the authority of God will not let anyone do what that rich man did. The two are intertwined. Everything we have, every ability and skill and blessing, is from God so to say “it’s mine” in the presence of someone suffering like that is why the rich man was there in the first place. His lack of belief manifested in the form of lack of compassion.

From Moses:

“If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs.

Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the Lord against you, and it become sin among you. You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the Lord your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand.

For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’

(Deuteronomy 15:7-11, NKJV)

 

[Clare73]

Again I will say that I literally just have a different interpretation based on the evidence at hand. Because acceptance of Jesus as Messiah means accepting that Jesus is Messiah. Meaning he is anointed King and High Priest with all authority over heaven and earth.

“But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do the things which I say? (Luke 6:46, NKJV)

Moses: “Stop being terrible people.”
The Prophets: “Stop being terrible people.”
Jesus: “Listen...”
Parable rich man: “Can you please send Lazarus to warn my brothers to stop being terrible people so they don’t end up here?”
Parable Abraham: “That won’t even help though.”
Jesus: raises Lazarus from the dead
Jewish Priests: literally plan to kill Lazarus so people don’t start to believe in Jesus

I think that synthesises what we were both saying as far as interpretation goes because while I don’t agree with your symbolic analysis I definitely agree that the Lord Jesus is the Messiah.

Believing in the authority of God will not let anyone do what that rich man did. The two are intertwined. Everything we have, every ability and skill and blessing, is from God so to say “it’s mine” in the presence of someone suffering like that is why the rich man was there in the first place. His lack of belief manifested in the form of lack of compassion.

From Moses:

“If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, but you shall open your hand wide to him and willingly lend him sufficient for his need, whatever he needs.

Beware lest there be a wicked thought in your heart, saying, ‘The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand,’ and your eye be evil against your poor brother and you give him nothing, and he cry out to the Lord against you, and it become sin among you. You shall surely give to him, and your heart should not be grieved when you give to him, because for this thing the Lord your God will bless you in all your works and in all to which you put your hand.

For the poor will never cease from the land; therefore I command you, saying, ‘You shall open your hand wide to your brother, to your poor and your needy, in your land.’

(Deuteronomy 15:7-11, NKJV)

In the NT, not feeding your hungry neighbor will not get you in hell.

The issue Jesus is judging in Luke 16:19-31 is much greater than not feeding your hungry neighbor.

It's rejection of him as Messiah and Savior, as the religious leaders did, which in the NT will get you in hell.