Rich Man and Lazarus most misunderstood parable in NT?

claninja said:

But those around Jesus would have understood why He called Herod a fox, as this was at term used to refer to someone as a nobody. The disciples, on the other hand, did not know what Jesus was talking about when he referred to the yeast of the Pharisees. Jesus was using allegorical language. Jesus often used allegorical language to convey messages (often hidden messages).

Click to expand...

Using a figure of speech, a simile in saying Herod sly, crafty and the disciples would understand this figure of speech as Christ did.

Karl.C said:

Clearly it is evident that you have an agenda to insert (read into) Luke 16:19-31 what is simply not in the text! There is no indication of the duration of the Rich Man's torment, so no foundation to support your "eternal" premise, thats just a figment of your imagination.

Also, the Rich Man is tormated by a single flame, not flames. And his torment can (in his perception) be remediated by a fingertip dipped in water, so the intensity of torment was perceived by him to be very mild.

Read what is written...without imaginative addition.

I can only assume you have been made subject to the curse of Isaiah 6:10 which Jesus was fond of applying to dogmatist...

Click to expand...

I am not adding anything to the text the text itself speaks of torment, paradise and a gulf that is fixed permanently to keep anyone from ever crossing. Logic dictates the occupants eternal existence on both sides of the gulf.

Again, I see the word flame, fire water tongue all used in a figurative sense to help man's understanding of what it will be like for those that end up lost. So the number of flames or size of the flame is not an issue. I do not believe that heaven has literal streets made of literal gold with a literal gate made of literal pearl but again, figurative language is employed to help man's understanding of what heaven will be like. I do not think man has the mental capacity to truly understand the greatness of heaven ( or torment of hell) so they are explained in terms where man can have some understanding.

There are those here who are being "dogmatic" that it is a parable even though that can never be proven beyond any doubt.

TheSeabass said:

Using a figure of speech, a simile in saying Herod sly, crafty and the disciples would understand this figure of speech as Christ did.

Click to expand...

Yes, so we agree, the disciples understood when Jesus called Herod a fox. Btw, just a little tidbit of information: during the time of jesus, calling someone a fox commonly meant they were a nobody or lowly.

But the disciples did not understand when Jesus warned of the yeast of the Pharisees.

To use the understanding of "fox" as a comparison to the yeast of Pharisee would be inappropriate

TheSeabass said:

There is nothing in the context that shows it would be hyperbole, only a theological bias would reach such a conclusion.



Mark 9:48 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." What is burned and the fire that burns both continue unstopped.

Matthew 25:41 "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:" The everlasting fire is an everlasting abode for those on the left hand. The verb "prepared" here is perfect tense as is the verb "fixed" in Luke 16:26 .....hence a permanent preparation for those on the left hand.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;" God's vengeance is ongoing, unending, the punishment is everlasting. How can they be punished with an everlasting fire if their existence is not everlasting?
Logically, those receiving punished will last/exist as long as the punishment lasts/exists.
The "presence of the Lord" is eternal hence the punishment will be as eternal as the Lord's presence.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the passages you quote that would indicate consciousness or life in the deceased.

• The fire is unquenched;
• The worm dieth not;
• The fire is everlasting;
• The punishment is everlasting;
• The destruction is everlasting.

Now unless you consider that the life of a person is a worm, a fire, a punishment or a destruction, which I do not, there is no reason from scripture to consider that the person thus punished dieth not.

In fact when we make a study of the possibilities for the spirit of man we find:
SOULS CAN DIE, SOULS CAN BE DEAD SOULS CAN BE KILLED, BE MURDERED IF A SOUL CAN DIE IT CANNOT BE IMMORTAL. Can whatever that was intended by the Hebrew word "nehphesh" die? Although it is often hid in many translations, the Bible says over 320 times that a nehphesh (soul):
1). Can die
2). Can be killed by man
3). Or that it is already dead If it can die, then whatever "nehphesh" is translated into something that can die. If the many words that "nehphesh" is translated into is something that can die, then a soul cannot be immortal, and a soul can die. To say that "nehphesh" (soul) is immortal and cannot die makes the Bible be wrong repeatedly. If a soul (nehphesh) is immortal and cannot die, the writers of the Bible did not know it.
(1). Souls (nehpheshs) can die Numbers 23:10, Ezekiel 18:4, 20, Joshua 11:11. o "They smote (killed) all the souls (nehphesh)” King James Version. o “And they struck every person (nehpheshs) who was in it with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them; there was no one left who breathed” New American Standard Bible. An immortal soul can die or be utterly destroy. Not only does the Bible not say a soul is immortal, it denies it by saying often that a soul can die, can be killed, or a soul is already dead,.
(2). Souls (nehpheshs) can be murdered. Deuteronomy 12:23; Numbers 35:11-15. (3). Souls (nehpheshs) can be killed Leviticus 24:17. An immortal soul can be killed? "Kills any person" (soul-nehphesh) Numbers 35:11, 15, 30, 31. (4). Souls (nehpheshs) can be smote with the sword and utterly destroyed Joshua 11:11. Immortal souls can be killed by the sword?
(5). Souls (nehpheshs) can be slain. An immortal soul can be slain? Deuteronomy 27:25.
(6). Souls (nehpheshs) can be destroyed. An immortal soul can be destroyed? Leviticus 23:30.
(7). Souls (nehpheshs) can be taken away 1 Kings 19:4.
(8). Souls (nehpheshs) can be sought to kill it Jeremiah 44:30.
(9). Souls (nehpheshs) cannot be kept alive. An immortal soul that cannot die, but it cannot be kept alive? Psalm 22:29. (10). Souls (nehpheshs) have blood and can bleed. "The blood of the souls (nehpheshs) of the poor" Jeremiah 2:34.

A FEW OF THE MANY PASSAGES IN THE KING JAMES VERSION THAT HID THE FACT THAT A SOUL CAN AND DOES DIE (1). “Let us not kill him” (soul–nehphesh). “Let us not take his life” (soul–nehphesh) New American Standard, Genesis 37:21.
(2). "Life (soul–nehphesh) for life (soul–nehphesh) Immortal soul for immortal soul?" Exodus 21:23.
(3). "Any dead body (soul–nehphesh)" Leviticus 21:11. Any dead soul?
(4). And he that killeth a beast shall make it good beast (soul–nehphesh) for beast (soulnehphesh)” Leviticus 24:17 King James Version, “Life (soul–nehphesh) for life (soul nehphesh) (soul for soul?)"
(5). “Whosoever is defiled by the dead (soul–nehphesh)" Numbers 5:2.
(6). “He shall come at no dead body (soul–nehphesh)" Numbers 6:6 King James Version. "He shall not go near to a dead person (soul–nehphesh).”
(7). “And he that killeth any man (soul–nehphesh) shall surely be put to death. And he that killeth a beast shall make it good beast (soul–nehphesh) for beast (soul–nehphesh)” (soul for soul?) Leviticus 24:17-18 King James Version. "And if a man takes the life (soul–nehphesh) of any
human being." Does anyone believe a person can take the life of an immortal, immaterial, deathless soul?
(8). "Because of a dead person (soul–nehphesh)" Numbers 6:11.
(9). "Defiled by the dead body of a man (soul–nehphesh)" Numbers 9:6- 7.
(10). "Unclean by reason of a dead body (soul–nehphesh)" Numbers 9:10. (11). "He that toucheth the dead body of any man (soul–nehphesh)” Numbers 19:11. “The one who touches the corpse of any person (soul–nehphesh)."
(12). “Whosoever toucheth the dead body (soul–nehphesh) of any man that is dead” " Numbers 19:13 KJV. "Anyone who touches a corpse, the body (soul–nehphesh) of a man who has died.” How could anyone touch the corpse of something that has no substance and cannot die? By today’s definition of soul this says an immaterial deathless something is dead, and this immaterial something is touched by man. Why did they not translate this “soul”? It would have destroyed their pagan belief if they had.
(13). "Whosoever has killed any person (soul–nehphesh)" Numbers 31:19.
(14). “Which killeth any person (soul–nehphesh)" Numbers 35:11.
(15). "Everyone that kills any person (soul–nehphesh) " Numbers 35:15.
(16). "Whoso kills any person (soul–nehphesh)" Numbers 35:30.
(17). “And slay him (soul–nehphesh)” Deuteronomy 19:6 KJV. "And take his life (soul–nehphesh)"
(18). "And strikes him so that he (soul–nehphesh) dies" Deuteronomy 19:11.
(19). "Life (soul–nehphesh) for life (soul–nehphesh), eye for eye, tooth for tooth" Deuteronomy 19:21.
(20). "A man rises against his neighbor and murders him (soul–nehphesh)" Deuteronomy 22:26.
(21). "Cursed be he who takes a bride to slay an innocent person (soul–nehphesh)" Deuteronomy 27:25.
(23). "And deliver our lives (souls–nehpheshs) from death" Joshua 2:13. Not, “Save our immortal, deathless souls from death.”
(24). "Who kills any person (soul–nehphesh)" Joshua 20:9. Not, “Who kills any immortal soul that cannot be killed.” (25). "That kills any person (soul–nehphesh)" Joshua 20:3.
(26). "Let me (soul–nehphesh) die" Judges 16:30. "Let my soul that cannot die, die anyway?"
(27). "And you lose your life (soul–nehphesh), with the lives (souls–nehpheshs) of your household" Judges 18:25.
(28). "If you do not save your life (soul–nehphesh) tonight" 1 Samuel 19:11. (29). "The death of all the persons (souls–nehpheshs) of your father's house" 1 Samuel 22:22.
(30). "He that seeks my life (soul–nehphesh) seeks your life (soul–nehphesh)" 1 Samuel 22:23.
(31). "He is seeking my life (soul–nehphesh)" 1 Samuel 20:1.
(32). "And David saw that Saul was come out to seek his life (soul–nehphesh)" 1 Samuel 23:15
(33). "Deliver him that smote his brother, that we may kill him for the life (soul–nehphesh) of his brother whom he slew" 2 Samuel 14:7.
(34). "Who today have saved your life (soul–nehphesh) and the lives (souls–nehpheshs) of your sons and daughter, the lives (souls–nehpheshs) of your wives, and the lives (souls–nehpheshs) of your concubines" 2 Samuel 19:5.
(35). "Have you asked for the life (soul–nehphesh) of your enemies" 1 Kings 3:11.
(36). "Prolong my life (soul–nehphesh)" Job 6:11. Prolong the life of an immortal, deathless soul?
(37). "For himself that he might die, and said, It is enough; now, O Lord, take my life (soulnehphesh)" 1 Kings 19:4.
(William W West excerpt from Ressurection or Immortality)

claninja said:

Yes, so we agree, the disciples understood when Jesus called Herod a fox. Btw, just a little tidbit of information: during the time of jesus, calling someone a fox commonly meant they were a nobody or lowly.

But the disciples did not understand when Jesus warned of the yeast of the Pharisees.

To use the understanding of "fox" as a comparison to the yeast of Pharisee would be inappropriate

Click to expand...

I like the depiction of Herod in Jesus Christ Superstar. He especially sounded foxy there ... whereas the yeast of the Pharisees were in what they did and not in what they said.

TheSeabass said:

I am not adding anything to the text the text itself speaks of torment, paradise and a gulf that is fixed permanently to keep anyone from ever crossing. Logic dictates the occupants eternal existence on both sides of the gulf.

Click to expand...

Read what you wrote in the quote above and reappraise

There is no mention of the extent or duration of the torment that the Rich Man experiences, in fact in the Rich Man;s perspective, his discomfort can be relieved by a fingertip dipped in water (a drop). There is no mention of paradise, merely that Lazarus is in the embrace of Abraham. A myth of the Jews! This was their metaphor for the fate of the righteous. In John's Gospel (8:41, 44) Jesus describes the Jews that held an unrealistic expectation of Abraham as doing "the deeds of your father...Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.".

If "Logic dictates the occupants eternal existence on both sides of the gulf" how is it that there is not one word in the OT about the righteous having consciousness after death. And there is only one bit of OT scripture that indicates that only rulers in sheol have a transient awakening to ridicule another ruler as he enters sheol.

I'm RCC so I accept the tradition of the Church, which apart from Luke 16:19-31 has no scriptural support regarding the fate of the dead. Just a reality protestants have to swallow, or else accept the tradition of the Church.

TheSeabass said:

Again, I see the word flame, fire water tongue all used in a figurative sense to help man's understanding of what it will be like for those that end up lost. So the number of flames or size of the flame is not an issue.

Click to expand...

Most Christian communions subscribe to the idea of particular judgement, which basically means that each is chastened according to the degree of their transgression. The Orthodox Chruches (RCC,ROC,EOC,OOC etc) all teach that the flame is representative of God's loving kindness (grace), and the torment occurs in the rejection of that love.

TheSeabass said:

I do not believe that heaven has literal streets made of literal gold with a literal gate made of literal pearl but again, figurative language is employed to help man's understanding of what heaven will be like. I do not think man has the mental capacity to truly understand the greatness of heaven ( or torment of hell) so they are explained in terms where man can have some understanding.

Click to expand...

There is a very old parable about an atheist who dies and goes to heaven. He arrives in a beautiful parkland and notices people running frantically up and down wide and narrow paths. Then to his left he notices a path obviously disused, overgrown wilh thickets & weeds. Curiousity gets the better of him and he decides to follow this path. Suddenly he comes to a wall with a door clear of obstructions just off to his right. So he walks up to it and knocks. Jesus immediately opened the door and greeted him...

TheSeabass said:

There are those here who are being "dogmatic" that it is a parable even though that can never be proven beyond any doubt.

Click to expand...

The other day, for the first time ever, I came across an ANF that speculated that it could be a narrative. However, for obvious reasons, while many ANF held it to be literal, they all thought it was a parable to be deciphered.

LittleLambofJesus said:

And last but not least, is the foreboding passage in Matt 21:43 concerning the Kingdom of God being taken away from the Jewish Priesthood and rulers:

Matthew 21:
43
Therefore I am saying to ye, that the Kingdom of the God shall be being taken-away from ye
and it shall be being given to a Nation doing the Fruits of it.
45
When the chief priests and Pharisees heard Jesus’ parables, they knew He was speaking about them

This passage has always intrigued me. Jesus says to the High Priest that he will see Him coming upon the clouds of heaven.

Matt 26:
64
Jesus Is saying to him "thou say, moreover I am saying to ye, from present/now ye shall be seeing the Son of the Man sitting out of rights of the power and coming upon the clouds of the heaven". [Jeremiah 4:13Reve 1:7/6:16]
65 At this, the High Priest rent his garments and said, “He has blasphemed!
Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy.…

Click to expand...

Whilst I think you and I agree that "the Rich Man" is readily identifiable as a High Priest of Jerusalem, your appeal to Mt 26 would defeat such a representation.

According to A.John, Jesus was dragged off to Annas' mansion & trialed by an (illegal) assembly of the Sanhedrin, who convicted Jesus, then dragged Jesus to Caiaphas' mansion so that Jesus could, under Roman law, be legally brought before Pilate & the decree of execution ratified.

Because of Annas' prior indescriminate excesses, his legal authority had been revoked under Roman law and a succession of sons followed until Caiaphas, who was the Roman appointee as HP at the time. The Jews, under Roman law, were prohibited from performing capital punishment without the express consent of the Roman prefect.

The HP Annas was the father-in-law of the HP Caiaphas. Jewish tradition would thus consider Annas as Caiaphas' father, and Annas' sons as Caiaphas' brothers. As previously agreed the numbers in Luke 16:19-31 are in agreement with the historical record.

In short: the HP that trialed & convicted Jesus has no quality (other than possibly life style) that would equate him to "the Rich Man" of Luke 16:19-31! However, any of Annas' sons or son-in-law could fit the narrative of "the Rich Man"...

Still, you have reminded me of a lot of things worth contemplating...

When I went to look up Mt 26, my eye immediately drifted to vs24 "...woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born". This caused me to immediately think upon Luke 17:1 that immediately follows the tale of the Rich Man & Lazarus "It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!".

Anyway...

There is an OT & inter-testament history that goes with the illegitimacy of the High Priesthood & the Temple elite of Israel...

...we can start with Aaron's creation of the golden calf, add to that the corruption of the Judges that got so bad that the Israelites demanded their abolition & that a king be appointed over them (like unto the nations). And the general failure of the Levites as teachers...leading to YHWH's formal divorce of Israel (the Northern Kingdom) and his condemnation of her sister Judea (the Southern Kingdom) whom YHWH condemns for worse harlotry.

The Temple (which YHWH never decreed nor wanted, but tolerated) had lost its validity if not from the day construction began. then from at least the time of the destruction of Solomon's edifice.

The Aaronic (High) Priesthood had lost its legitimacy from the moment King David made himself King & High Priest of the order of Melchizedek and had Zadok officiate (cp. Moses & Jethro).

Jewish tradition has it that YHWH's laws were unknown from Joshua to Ezra, and this can be readily demonstrated from David cursing YHWH when YHWH had struck Uzzah down dead for touching the ark, even though Uzzah did so to protect the ark!

The next illigitimacy is reflected from Ezra's times onward when the scribes were busy re-edited the OT (eg: compare 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21). To Ezra's credit he refound "the Law" (some Jewish accademic Rabbi say he revised and added to its severity).

The next illigitimacy that continued until the time of Jesus dates back to the rise of the Maccabees when Johnathan Maccabeus (Johnathan Apphus) did a David and was appointed as King & High Priest of the order of Melchizedek. Imu, Johnathan was a Cohen so could be appointed High Priest, but wasn't of the royal bloodline(?)

After that the HP was bought, sold, murders committed and/or puppets enthroned to gain power over Israel.

Annas & his family are accursed in the Talmud for corrupting the Temple. He & family maintained a monopoly over all Temple services from the raising of turtle doves through to the money changes in the court yard (only shekles were currency in the Temple precincts and like Disneyland, you couldn't byo)...

This "High Priest of the order of Melchizedek" is important in Christianity (Hebrews 5:1-10)... Mainly because Jesus wasn't a Cohen (of Aaronic bloodline) & because of the iffy nature of Jesus' claim to Kingship = via Mary through Natham - not particularly a strong claim, and via Joseph through the accursed (by YHWH) line of Jeconiah - which immediately precludes him from the kingship.

However, being of the same order as Melchizedek, Jesus like Melchizedek was not dependent on appointment by man or entitlement, but appointment and exhaltation by God alone! (cp. Heb 7:2. nb: Jewish tradition holds that this King of Salem, the Prince of Peace/Righteousness, was Noah's son Shem, who towards the end of his life passed on the priesthood to Abraham and thus, from a Christian perspective to Jesus).

Anyway, finally getting to my point: Have a reread of Mt 26:63-64...


Now have a read of Psalms 110:1,4


Later Rabbi in the Targums argue that this Psalm was actually addressing Abraham, not David (?) Modern Rabbi, apply this idea to reject the Christian claims regarding Jesus, but then get tongue tied when it is suggested that the Christian claim regards Abraham not necessarily David!.

Imu, in effect Jesus' reply to the HP at Mt 26:64 would have been understood by the Sanhedrin as prophetic, and thus from the accusations of Mt 26:59-61, and impossiblity of the proffered claim, Jesus could (with some imagination) be accused of being a false prophet which would satifiy the desire of vs59.

Deuteronomy 13:5 "That prophet or dreamer must be put to death for inciting rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery. That prophet or dreamer tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you"

Just a thought provoked by your reference to Mt 21...

Parable is the making use of the simplest terms to illustrate a less obvious point. Eternal hell was the simplest term understandable to all the audience (the Jews) when Jesus said it.

Eternal hell, immortal soul and etc. were basic Pharisaic concepts dominated the Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews back in Jesus' time. Jesus was making a parable out of those concepts easily understandable to the Jews.

Hawkins said:

Parable is the making use of the simplest terms to illustrate a less obvious point. Eternal hell was the simplest term understandable to all the audience (the Jews) when Jesus said it.

Eternal hell, immortal soul and etc. were basic Pharisaic concepts dominated the Hebrew/Aramaic speaking Jews back in Jesus' time. Jesus was making a parable out of those concepts easily understandable to the Jews.

Click to expand...

No mention of duration or extent of the torment except that a finger tip dipped in water could relieve "the Rich Man's" torment.

So you are obviously working from a false premise. There is no mention of "eternity", "hell", "immoral soul" etc. And none of those idea were universally accepted by the Pharisees, all of them are purely Hellenistic conceptions of an after life rejected by pious Jews, then and now...

The OT expectation of the dead was they were completely dorment, as if asleep.

Notice Lazarus' total inactivity in Jesus' tale.

As a metaphor, the Pharissees described the righteous "at rest at Abraham's bosom" (in Jesus' & NT terms "as if asleep").

In the OT the single verse that might be used to suggest a transcient awakening of the dead is restricted to rulers ridiculing & admitting another ruler into Sheol.

At Daniel 12:2 three classes of people are depicted, "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt", the third group remain in oblivion = don't get resurrected!

That is the OT witness!


Assuming you have read the NT you will have noted Jesus spent the time between his burial & resurrection in Hades (what you call Hell).

Gehenna (the Lake of Fire. the River of Fire) is the final abode of the unrighteous in both Christian and Pharisee thought.

There is only one verse in Revelation that might insinuate that it is a place of enduring (unending) torment, though the majority of the NT uses metaphor that describes obliteration, which is what the Jews in Jesus' time assumed would happen to the unrighteous (albeit it was assumed a period of purgation upto a max of 12 months would occur before they were cast into the "river of fire" that they believed flowed through the lower levels of sheol/hades).

I'm RCC, I support my convictions from Catholic (Universal) tradition, simply because your fallaciousness is unsupportable from scripture! Just a fact of life protestants who do not study scripture have to live with...

oops!

LittleLambofJesus said:

Strong's Hebrew: 7585. שְׁאוֹל (sheol or sheol) -- 66 Occurrences
Strong's Hebrew 7585 66 Occurrences

This is one place I know of where a person is actually conjured up.
Would Samuel be in what is referred to Hades?

Click to expand...

Jesus went to hades/sheol for the time period between his burial & resurrection. Biblically, until the resurrection (second coming) that is where we all end up. In the scriptural metaphor "as if asleep".

Before I was baptised as an adult this is where I thought I might diverge from RCC teaching as I knew it from my father. However, nearly 30 years ago the Church issued a decree discouraging the teaching of Limbo (in other words the teaching is next best thing to banned as a teaching of the Church, but open philosophical discussion is permitted), and Purgatory remains under review.

The Eastern Churches whilst accepting "particular judgement" have always rejected these two RCC premises. I rejected them on the basis of "equity". But, my priest said "these teachings are not critical to salvation (dogma) so believe what solid food your current understanding can stomach but keep studying the scriptures seeking the light ithat is visible from a distance..."

LittleLambofJesus said:

1 Samuel 28:
7 Then Saul said to his servants, “Seek for me a woman who is a medium, that I may go to her and inquire of her.” And his servants said to him, “Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor.” 8 Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, “Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you.” ....................

14 He said to her, “What is his form?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe.” And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage. 15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” And Saul answered, “I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do.”
20 Then Saul immediately fell full length upon the ground and was very afraid because of the words of Samuel; also there was no strength in him, for he had eaten no food all day and all night.

Click to expand...

What you seem to have missed:

1. Saul was totally dependent on what the witch related to him.
2. Saul at no time saw or heard Samuel.
3. Saul had breached Exodus 22:18 (and his own decrees) in visiting the witch.
4. Saul put huge value in Samuel's prophetic ability, but refused to acknowledge its source.
5. A faithful prophet of God, such as Samuel, would not submit to his summing by someone whom YHWH had accursed!
6. Like the one account in Isaiah, where rulers have a transient awaking to ridicule another ruler as he enters sheol, the witch's description of Samuel is of one woken from slumber and given the silence of scripture it is depicted as a one off event (transient).

The traditional reading (the one I am familiar with) is that YHWH used the witch to proclaim doom upon Saul...no actual summoning of the dead occured (which is against YHWH's decrees), and Samuel didn't actually make an appearance, except for maybe in the mind (imagination) of the witch.

An alternitive view I've heard tell is that the witch's demon facilitated (acted out) the apparition. Compare Acts 16:16-18.

I would've thought His most misunderstood parable is the unforgiving servant. People have spent the last 500 years trying to spin that into saying something other than what it says.

And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt. So also shall my heavenly Father do to you, if you forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.
- St. Matthew 18:34-35 (DRA)

LittleLambofJesus said:

Why do some commentators view the Rich Man and Lazarus parable of Luke 16 as of the most misunderstood parables in NT?

Click to expand...

Oh, something else. I don't get why some people think the story of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable. I guess it might be but nothing about the story itself demands that it be regarded as a parable.