Abraham's Bosom

[Philawallafox]

i've seen this around a little and have never heard of it outside of P/R What's your scriptural backing for this verse?

[Jamesman42]

Yeah, I saw BrotherH mention it and I've rarely heard it, but would like an answer as well.

[bosk1]

Luke 16:19-31: 

19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell[d] from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 “Then 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 tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”

The two flaws in his argument in the other thread are:
1.  There is nothing in this passage to remotely suggest that both realms (or states of being, depending on what you believe these represent) are in hell (which they are not).
2.  He is basing a doctrine on a parable.  I.e. he is taking a story that is, by definition, not literal, and trying to extrapolate out of it several literal elements instead of reading it as a fictional story intended to teach a particular point (which is what parables are designed to do).

[Jamesman42]

I thought the point of a parable was to relate to the novice the desired content to be learned to something they understood (but was still real). Or was the point of a parable to relate the desired content to be learned to something they believed, whether right or wrong?

[bosk1]

Sorry if I said it in a confusing way.  The answer is basically the former of the two things you said.  For example, in the parable of the sower, Jesus isn't necessarily saying a particular farmer went out and sowed seed and that what happens next in the parable literally happened to this particular farmer.  He is just using a familiar illustration (or fictional story that would use familiar elements) to teach them something new.

[Jamesman42]

So, you do believe that the parable you provided for the basis of Abraham's bosom draws from Jesus' belief in a literal hell?

[rumborak]

What is the actual word they use for it? I've read both Hades and Hell.

rumborak

[bosk1]

So, you do believe that the parable you provided for the basis of Abraham's bosom draws from Jesus' belief in a literal hell?

I believe it necessarily implies the existence of an afterlife and in two different places or states of being--one very pleasant and the other very unpleasant.  Whether those are literally heaven and hell or some sort of pre-judgment "holding tank," as BJ put it, isn't clear, and I think anyone taking a dogmatic stance based on that passage is, again, reading too much into it.  But Jesus could not have used that illustration unless there was already some familiarity among his listeners with the idea that there is post-life reward/punishment based on our deeds in this life.

What is the actual word they use for it? I've read both Hades and Hell.

rumborak

I don't have my interlinear with me to check for sure, but I believe the word that is translated "hades" in verse 23 is tartarus, which is often translated "Hell" in many translations.  But I could be mistaken.  If I remember, I'll look it up when I'm at home.

[rumborak]

I'm asking because the account sounds very much of Greek conception of Hades and the river Styx. That is, Abraham can talk to the rich man across the river Styx, which makes (to me) this line fall into place:

26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’

rumborak

[bosk1]

So are you saying Jesus was not necessarily referring to a belief held by the Jews of his time, but could merely have been referring to a Greek belief system they would have been familiar with at the time?  If so, that's an interesting take I hadn't previously thought of.  

But, IMO, I don't think so because (1) there are some definite differences as well that would suggest that this was not actually the same type of afterlife the Greeks believed in; (2) while there are definitely exceptions on an individual basis, the Jews of Jesus' day in Palestine were very much against Greek religious practices, which they looked down on and viewed as anathema (which often got them into trouble), so it seems unlikely Jesus would use as an illustration a prominent figure in Jewish history (Abraham) in an afterlife-type existence that the Greeks would have believed in; and (3) again, there are too many apparent references to an afterlife in OT and NT writings for me to just write off and say "the Jews didn't have their own belief in an afterlife, so they had to borrow one from other religions."  Still an interesting thought though.

[Jamesman42]

Not to say I believe that the river Styx and Hell are the same, but to your reply, bosk, the Jews hated Jesus and called him a blasphemer, so...

[bosk1]

Some Jews, yes.  But none of them could accuse him of adopting pagan worship.

[rumborak]

So are you saying Jesus was not necessarily referring to a belief held by the Jews of his time, but could merely have been referring to a Greek belief system they would have been familiar with at the time?  If so, that's an interesting take I hadn't previously thought of.  

I think my point is more that the author of Luke, who chose to wrote in Greek, will have used a concept of hell he was very familiar with, to flesh out a point he was trying to make, a point which doesn't really depend so much on the specifics of backdrop.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Oh, I see.

[Ħ]

I totally missed this thread, lol.

As far as taking the parable literally or spiritually, I would rather err on the side of being too literal.  I'll admit that I'm not 100% positive, but Revelation indicates that Hell is only a precursor to the lake of fire...completely separate.  If you take Revelation literally, which I do, the beings in Hell will be loosed for a thousand years, then at the great white throne judgment, they will be eternally cast into the lake of fire.

Another interesting connection I made recently--Jesus talks about how he is going to go into the heart of the earth.  In Revelation, he is said to hold the keys of Hell and death.  I imagine this is because Hell is literally in the center of the earth, and when Jesus went to Hell for three days (and I'm sure I'm raising a whole separate issue by mentioning that, oh well), he beat death and rose again...Hell is said to have gates, and gates have keys, and I don't see any good reason to not take that literally.  Anywho, there's a lot of indication that Hell is in the center of the earth.  

This is extremely interesting because in 1 Sam 28:13, which I read recently, says that Samuel (mistaken by the woman as a god) rose out of the earth.  Obviously Samuel wasn't suffering because he's, you know, Samuel, but this further strengthens the idea that Hell has a nice side and a nasty side.

EDIT:  Again, I understand that their aren't explicit verses that say, "There are two sides of Hell.  You got that?  Take it literally.  LITERALLY I SAY!"  But I think there is more indication towards there being two sides of Hell than not, so I side with whatever has more evidence.

EDIT 2: Upon thinking about it even further, it doesn't seem like any contradictions or problems are raised with their being two sides of Hell.  I mean, why not?  Tradition isn't a good reason not to accept something.

And upon thinking about the reference to Lazurus as simply a parable, maybe.  But keep in mind that all the other parables referred to real, tangible things, even if they were used to convey a spiritual truth.  Jesus wasn't actually a winepresser or whatever, but winepressers and vineyards did exist.  Likewise, the reference to two people having a conversation in Hell, while one suffers and the other doesn't, may very well exist.  Also, if it wasn't true, why was Jesus so specific in using a proper name like Lazurus?  If there was just some spiritual message he wanted to communicate, he would have just left it anonymous.

EDIT 3: The Greek word for "Hades" in Luke 16:23 is actually hades (go figure), and it occurs in:
Mt 11:23, 16:18
Lk 10:15
Acts 2:27,31
Rev 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14

If you look up those references, Hades is always associated with suffering or death.  The word "hell" is geenna, and is similar but different.  Basically, hell is a bad place to be, but, as I pointed out earlier, it contains (or at least is adjacent to) Abraham's Bosom, if they are 1) in the heart of the earth, and 2) their inhabitants can communicate with each other.  At any rate, hell, Hades, and Abraham's Bosom are all just "holding tanks" like I said before, and it doesn't really matter whether or not hell and Hades are the same or separate, or anything like that.  The most important thing is that:

1) Before Christ's death and resurrection, the saints' sins had not yet been paid for, and they couldn't be in heaven where God is.  They needed a place to wait until Christ did die for their sins.  That place was Abraham's bosom.

2) The lost souls went to hell and Hades.  I don't think there's any argument with that.  But, one day in the future, these souls will be released and eventually cast into the lake of fire, which is where they'll spend eternity.  Both places suck.

That's all I really meant by bringing up Abraham's Bosom.  I don't see how accepting it or denying it affects any major doctrine, but I thought it was interesting when I heard it.

EDIT 4: This is my last edit, lol.  Remember when Jesus told the theif that he would see him in paradise that day?  Well, that theif couldn't have been to heaven until at least three days later when his sins were fully paid for.  And Jesus didn't go to heaven until the ascension, of course.  So in order for that verse to be true, there has to be a different "paradise" they went to that was not heaven.  Abraham's bosom fits in perfectly.


I'm really sorry for spewing out jumbled ideas/verses.  I hope you follow.  I just wanted to point out a couple things that lead me personally to believe that they're are two sides of Hell, or at least a temporary paradise that is not heaven.

[SnakeEyes]

The Luke passage that bosk posted is pretty clear.  It specifically says that the rich man died and, when he woke up, he was being tormented in a really bad place.  Jesus wouldn't mess with people's minds like that by making them think there was a really good place and a really bad place.  If there weren't really a bad place after we die, he wouldn't have told the story of the rich man going there as described in Luke.

Also, I could be totally off base here, but it seems significant that Jesus spoke about this place of torment in the Gospels AND in Revelation.  It's significant because it demonstrates that there is a place of torment immediately after death and BEFORE what happens in Revelation as opposed to the argument some people make that we just die and get judged later and things like that.   

[rumborak]

What strikes me as weird in this discussion is how everybody is focusing on the modalities of heaven vs. hell they can possibly glean from this passage. At least to me, the passage's point is the important one, with the backdrop only serving as the framework to get the point across. I mean, keep in mind that you aren't reading a dictated transcript of Jesus' words. You're reading a recollection by a disciple. And for the disciple the point was important to get across, and to do so he used the Greek concepts of Hades and the river Styx.

My 2 cents. I know most of you in this thread are literalists, so none of my points will really matter to you.

rumborak

[SnakeEyes]

And, what do you think the point is, rumborak?  By the way, another point that I forgot to make in my last post:  a lot of people think that the rich man/ poor man story is a parable, but Jesus doesn't say it's a parable and, as far as I know, he didn't specifically name people in parables.  So, that gives a lot of credibility to the idea that Jesus was speaking literally.   

[rumborak]

And, what do you think the point is, rumborak?   

The point of the passage is the same of so many other Jesus sayings: The meek shall inherit the earth.
Jesus asked his followers to shed all earthly belongings and attachments. The beggar was poor and had been punished by life, so he gets rewarded after death. The rich man didn't shed his belongings, and so he gets punished after death.
That's the first message. The second message is that each person has to do it for themselves, not on the pushing of others. The rich man wants to warn his siblings to change their ways, but Jesus says that this shedding has to come from your own volition.

Of course this passage also means that no current Christian will go to heaven Unless you buy into Paulian redefinition of what it takes to go to heaven.

rumborak

[SnakeEyes]

The point of the passage is the same of so many other Jesus sayings: The meek shall inherit the earth.

Okay, no problem with this.

The second message is that each person has to do it for themselves, not on the pushing of others. The rich man wants to warn his siblings to change their ways, but Jesus says that this shedding has to come from your own volition.

Fine with this, too. 

There's a third message, too:  Hell is BAD.  Where the rich man went exists and Jesus went out of his way to describe it and say that a man went there.  So, that's a third point that you're not including and I think it's the most important one. 

Of course this passage also means that no current Christian will go to heaven Unless you buy into Paulian redefinition of what it takes to go to heaven.

I don't understand what you're saying.  Do you mean that no current Christian helps the poor?  If you mean that, then that's just ignorant, rumborak. 

[AndyDT]

And, what do you think the point is, rumborak?   

The point of the passage is the same of so many other Jesus sayings: The meek shall inherit the earth.
Jesus asked his followers to shed all earthly belongings and attachments. The beggar was poor and had been punished by life, so he gets rewarded after death. The rich man didn't shed his belongings, and so he gets punished after death.
That's the first message. The second message is that each person has to do it for themselves, not on the pushing of others. The rich man wants to warn his siblings to change their ways, but Jesus says that this shedding has to come from your own volition.

Of course this passage also means that no current Christian will go to heaven Unless you buy into Paulian redefinition of what it takes to go to heaven.

rumborak

Do you believe in an afterlife or reincarnation?

[rumborak]

Of course this passage also means that no current Christian will go to heaven Unless you buy into Paulian redefinition of what it takes to go to heaven.

I don't understand what you're saying.  Do you mean that no current Christian helps the poor?  If you mean that, then that's just ignorant, rumborak.  

Jesus' requirements for entering heaven were quite a bit higher than just giving a couple of bucks to charity from your paycheck. (e.g. Luke 18:22)
That's what I'm saying. Every Christian who is not a monk counts as a "rich man" in this passage.

Do you believe in an afterlife or reincarnation?

No. Would be nice if there was such a thing, but wishing for something doesn't make it true.

rumborak

[SnakeEyes]

Jesus' requirements for entering heaven were quite a bit higher than just giving a couple of bucks to charity from your paycheck. (e.g. Luke 18:22)
That's what I'm saying. Every Christian who is not a monk counts as a "rich man" in this passage.

Helping the poor is something that went back to the OT.  It had already been commanded by God to help the poor many times.  If the rich man had truly been serving God, he would have helped the poor man.  But, he wasn't a servant of God and his behavior of ignoring the poor man was an example of that. 

[SnakeEyes]

Some reading material for you, rumborak:

https://www.worshipinspiritandtruth.net/page5.htm

[rumborak]

I know that the OT, i.e. the Torah, suggested to help the poor. But that's the Torah, i.e. the old Jewish system; Jesus took that to the next level, saying that to enter heaven, you should part with all you have.

Some reading material for you, rumborak:
https://www.worshipinspiritandtruth.net/page5.htm

SnakeEyes, take that page and scan through it. One thing that is brutally obvious is that there is almost no mention of synoptic passages. Much stuff from the OT, i.e. the Torah, and stuff from Paul.
The reason? When you start quoting the main guy directly, you end up with very uncomfortable demands on one's life. Because there is a stark difference between what Jesus said it would take to get to heaven, and what the Torah or Paul said it would take.
Jesus preached that the Kingdom was imminent, and one should shed all belongings in expectation of it and give it to the poor. Paul had the problem that Jesus had died, the Jewish temple was destroyed. Initially he thought the Kingdom was going to come soon after all and thus advised people not to marry, i.e. essentially live on as Jesus' disciples did; but facing with the years where nothing happened, he adjusted his teachings to be more "sustainable". If you can't tell when the Kingdom will happen, you can't tell people to live in poverty until it happens. But that's Paul succumbing to reality. Not what Jesus taught.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Not really, rumborak, but I can easily see why you might think so.  (Although, yes, Jesus does indeed make some very uncomfortable demands on one's life) 

[rumborak]

Not really, rumborak, but I can easily see why you might think so.

Well, I can easily see why you wouldn't think so

EDIT: BTW, I'm obviously not the only one who came to this conclusion. Essentially all Christian monasteries are full of people who, upon reading Jesus' quotes, came to the conclusion that living in poverty is a prerequisite to going to heaven.

rumborak

[bosk1]

Oh, of course.  That's why I say I can understand that interpretation.  I don't think it is correct, but I think it is a reasonable conclusion to draw.

[rumborak]

I know; but doesn't that beg the accusation that you're drawing the convenient conclusion that justifies living in the culture you were born into? That is, you were born into mainstream Western culture; so you choose the biblical interpretation that lets you live that lifestyle?

rumborak

[bosk1]

Certainly.

[rumborak]

Well, I think Jesus had a few words to say on that approach to belief.

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

I am 100% with rumby.  
the very moment we begin to rationalize Jesus' call for total discipleship is the moment we begin to miss his point

[rumborak]

I don't think you want to agree 100% with me

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

 

I actually marked it on my calendar as a historic day in my life

[rumborak]

Wait, but just so I get this straight: You have consoled yourself to the fact that you're not going to heaven, since you're not following Jesus' demands? Or do you just assert Paulian superiority over Jesus' teaching?

rumborak