A Weekend In Hell or in the Tomb?

FOR THOU WILT NOT LEAVE MY SOUL IN HELL;
NEITHER WILT THOU SUFFER THINE HOLY ONE TO SEE CORRUPTION
Psalm 16:10



Jesus in the tomb

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then 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. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:19-31

We will begin our study with one of the most controversial passages in the entire New Testament. This verse is put forth with the utmost zeal and confidence to prove conscious existence after death in either a paradise or a place of torment. Numerous books and tracts have been published, and countless sermons preached on the passage describing the agony of the damned in hell. In my experience, those who zealously cite this passage to maintain their beliefs usually leave little or no room for discussion of any kind.

I will admit; if this story from our Lord is an actual narrative of two men and their eternal destinies, then I should stop writing. If every facet of this story be literal in every detail then it would be pointless for me to continue to maintain my position, and I could be certain that my entire understanding of the nature of man, the spirit, and the afterlife is utterly worthless.

However, I also realize that almost 2000 years have past since our Lord uttered these inspired words. I was not among the crowd to whom these words were addressed. I was not able to hear the tone of his voice, or witness the reaction of those to whom these words were spoken. In fact, I'm not even Jew, and don't pretend to understand fully their customs, manner of speech, oral traditions, etc. For these reasons I believe we must be very careful, and very reverent in our approach to any passage in the Bible, but especially ones such as this which are surrounded with so much mysticism and controversy. Are we ever at liberty to take any passage of scripture at face value without relying on the Lord to teach us the proper meaning?

When considering this passage, the first question we must answer is; 'Is this a parable?'. This question will most certainly be answered with an emphatic 'NO' by those who will cite it to maintain their positions. The conversation usually runs something like this:

'Is the story of the Rich man and Lazarus a parable?'

'NO, it is not. It is a literal narrative of something which happened between two men who Jesus knew'

'How do you know it isn't a parable?'

'Because Jesus never used proper names such as 'Lazarus' in his parables.'

'But doesn't this assume what you're trying to prove? For if it is a parable, then it can't be said that Jesus never used proper names in parables.'

'You are not correct. If Jesus used a proper name, and the story isn't true, then Jesus lied and taught false information'

While this argument seems plausible it fails to take several things into account. To get a clear picture of what Jesus actually meant here, we have to take much more into consideration than an assumption that 'Jesus never uses proper names in parables.' We have to ask ourselves; To whom were these words addressed? What prompted these words? How might those hearing him have interpreted these words? Would a literal interpretation contradict something Jesus said elsewhere?

I believe that if we will drop our preconceived ideas, repent of shallow, superficial study of the Bible, and let our minds not be so easily prejudiced by emotion, we will get a much clearer picture of the exact meaning of the passage.

First, let us assume, as so many assert, that this passage is indeed not a parable but a literal narrative. The careful reader with an open mind should immediately ask many questions and demand answers. Why is nothing said here about a 'soul' or 'spirit'? Do immaterial souls and spirits have tongues, and fingers on which water could be placed? Would a great gulf be any barrier of passage to an immaterial being? If the gulf is so great, why can these men so easily converse across it? Was it a comfort for the righteous souls to look across this gulf and see the agony of the damned? Would the righteous Abraham even hear the prayer of a lost man on the other side, let alone converse with him?

But the biggest question by far remains to be asked. If, as is asserted, this is a literal story and the clearest teaching which Jesus gave on the state of departed souls after death; if this is indeed his most solemn warning that the wicked will be in torments if they fail to obtain salvation in this life, then we should also expect to find a clear teaching about salvation in regard to these two men; but alas, we do not! In fact, if in our evangelical services today, one should visit and preach a sermon such as this, they would be chased from the building!

We are told nothing of the beggar accepting Jesus, believing in Jesus, having faith in God, asking Jesus into his heart, being born again, etc. Not one word of it! Jesus simply says:

'And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom.'

What are we to make of this? Is being a poor beggar a requirement for salvation? Are all poor beggars saved? Similarly, he says of the rich man:

'There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day… the Rich Man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.'

Does being rich and having nice clothes damn anyone to hell? The only words our Lord cared to utter about these two men were that the one was rich, one was poor, one died and was tormented, the other died and was comforted. How incredibly strange!

How many evangelical, or fundamental pastors in America would allow such a sermon to be preached from their pulpits? How many of us upon hearing such a thing would shout, 'salvation by works!!!', 'Legalism!!!'. How do we possibly account for such carelessness in failing to give anything even remotely approaching a clear teaching on what is required for salvation if this is indeed the clearest teaching on the fate of those who fail to find it? Are those who use this passage to teach a literal hell of torment ever so careless in neglecting to tell their listeners how to be saved and escape the dreadful fate which Jesus is allegedly describing here? 

How quick we are to snatch these words out of Jesus' mouth and proclaim 'In HELL he lift up his eyes being in torment!!!!!' without telling WHO our Lord said was there, and HOW our Lord said he got there! Those who vehemently proclaim 'this is not a parable!', and defend such a thought by arguing that it can't be because it would otherwise make Jesus a liar, do so only by making him teach something which they admit is not correct doctrinally! I personally know of no evangelical or fundamental ministry which teaches that being a poor beggar will guarantee heaven, or that being rich and having nice clothing will damn anyone to hell.

But there is no reason or excuse for being this careless or inconsistent , unless we seek only to find yet another 'proof-text' to prop up a much cherished belief.

We believe the story is indeed a parable.

First, consider the context leading up to this story.  We have many parables immediately preceding this account: the ambitious guest, the great supper, the tower, the king going to war, the savorless salt, the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son, and the unjust steward which concludes in Luke 16:13 with:

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Luke 16:13

After this we hear of the reaction of the Pharisees:

And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16:14-15

Notice in verse 15 that Jesus begins to address the Pharisees . This is in contrast to the beginning of Chapter 16 where he is addressing his disciples. Then in verse 19, Jesus begins the story of Lazarus and the Rich man. Whatever the point of the story, it was aimed at the Pharisees. This is of the utmost importance, and seems to be either unnoticed or ignored by those who would make this into a literal narrative. 

Why is this detail so important to our study of this passage? If Jesus is about to give the clearest teaching in all four Gospels regarding the state of conscious souls after death then he surely has a strange audience when we consider what he told his disciples elsewhere:

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?

He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Matt 13:10-11

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. Matt 13:33

All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: Matt 13:34

And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. Mark 4:11-12

If Jesus is about to give the clearest, most convincing proof on the reality and nature of hell; the teaching which is quoted to the multitudes as proof that our Lord sanctioned such a teaching, then how are we to account for the audience to whom it was originally addressed? If this is not a parable then how are we to account for his words elsewhere? If Jesus' purpose in telling it was evangelism, which is the way the story is most generally employed today, then how are we to explain his words:

all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Even if we totally abandon context, and fail to see that there are at least seven parables leading up to this one, these words from Jesus should still serve as proof that the story is a parable because it's clearly addressed to the Pharisees.

And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it. But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.
Mark 4:33-34

Those who insist on making this story into a literal narrative are certainly in a quandary about what to do with such forceful words. The story is a parable as a careful study of scripture proves. But as we shall see, not just any parable, but one very unique in character so as to give the utmost possible force to the lesson it was set forth to convey to very specific audience to whom it was addressed.

We do not argue that Jesus never said anything to the Pharisees which was not a parable. But the question must be asked; is he teaching the Pharisees doctrine?  Did he give to them, not only the clearest, but the only passage of scripture which details this concept of a two-compartmented hell between death and the resurrection? Is he unveiling to them this mysterious truth which is never explained elsewhere to his disciples, or to anyone?

Let those who would use this story to teach doctrine, use the entire story to teach their doctrines and not only those parts which suit them.  If this passage really teaches a truth about a two-compartmented hell between death and the resurrection, then it also teaches salvation by poverty and damnation by wealth!

PROPER NAMES IN PARABLES?

Before considering exactly how the Pharisees would have reacted to such a story, I would like to comment a bit about the argument that states; 'This cannot be a parable because parables do not contain proper names.'

While it is true that this parable is unique in its use of a proper name (Lazarus) so far as the teachings of Jesus are concerned, it is not true that Biblical parables never use proper names.

In Ezekiel 23 the LORD tells Ezekiel about two sisters;

The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah. Ezek 23:1-4

Here the Lord uses proper names, 'Aholah' and 'Aholibah', but these aren't real women, for he says that one represents Samaria, and the other Jerusalem. Are we to accuse the Lord of slander against any other women who may have been named as such? But then again, if there weren't really two women named Aholah and Aholibah, are we to call the Lord a liar because he said 'there were two women'? No, the Lord used these names to convey a very specific lesson; one meaning 'she has her own tent', and the other 'my tent is in her'. As we shall see in due course, the name 'Lazarus' was also used for a very specific purpose.

But some will still persist, as in the Dakes Annotated Reference Bible commenting on 'There was a certain Rich Man':

'There was or there was not - which? If there was not, then Christ told an untruth, for he said there was'

But this is a straw man, as is obvious from examining another familiar story in 2 Samuel

And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him. And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. 2 Sam 12:1-7

Here Dake says:

'Note the short parable of Nathan that God used to bring David to repentance'

So even though here Nathan says 'There were...' Dake has no problem admitting that this is a parable. Where are the accusations of making Nathan a liar because he said 'there were two men' followed by a fictitious story? It might be argued that Nathan didn't use a proper name, but if we closely examine the passage, we see that he actually did; for at the end he tells David 'thou art the man'. Now strictly and literally speaking, that really wasn't true was it? David never literally stole anyone's little ewe lamb did he? Are we to make Nathan a liar too? No, the problem is an imagined one only advanced because the position that man has an immortal soul desperately needs to make Luke 16 into a literal narrative. 

JESUS VS. THE TRADITIONS
OF THE PHARISEES

It in order to understand this parable, it is absolutely necessary to understand Jesus' relationship to the Pharisees, as well as his main contention with them; it is to them that this parable was addressed.

Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Matt 15:1-6

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
Mark 7:3-9

Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Mark 7:13

Outside of the Bible, most of what we know concerning the Pharisees comes from the writings of Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived shortly after the time of Christ. Josephus himself claimed to be Pharisee.

The Pharisees originated out of a group of confederates which separated around 135 BC from the rest of the people which did not keep the law in order to follow the exact prescriptions of the law. Thus they arose in the time between the writing of the Old and New Testaments, a time when the Jews were under heavy influence by Greek philosophy.

By strict obedience to the law, they sought to be a pure community and the true people of God preparing themselves for the coming messiah. The laws of the Scriptures were carried out to the most minute detail. All purity regulations, the tithing on all goods, laws regarding the Sabbath, etc., were strictly obeyed. The 'Scribes' who were to be expert in the law, gave binding interpretations upon the Scriptures. For example, you could not cook on the Sabbath. One law states that you could heat water on the Sabbath only if the stove had previously been lit, but it was forbidden to actually light the stove.

These oral traditions, and interpretations of the law became as important, or more important than the Scriptures themselves. Heavy burdens were placed upon men to keep them and condemnation was proclaimed upon anyone who refused to keep their interpretations of the law. It was for this reason that Jesus condemned them, that they 'taught as doctrine the commandments of men.'

During this period between the close of the Old Testament and the New Testament, Jewish teaching, under the influence of Greek language and philosophy, changed a great deal. Whereas most scholars will readily admit that the conception of the immortality of the soul, and the punishment of souls immediately after death is completely foreign to the Old Testament, these concepts began to gradually appear in the apocryphal literature that arose from this period. Keep in mind, that the apocrypha is not considered to be inspired scripture (except in Catholic Bibles), but does give us some insight into how the teaching regarding the immortality of the soul and hell began to emerge in this period. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, concerning the use of 'soul' in the Old Testament says:

'A clear indication of how unfamiliar the OT is with a concept of a soul separate from the body, or a soul which becomes separated from the body at death, is that it can speak of a dead person as the soul of that person, and mean by this phrase the dead person is his corporeality'

It then goes on to talk about progressive Jewish thought by adding:

'Hellenistic influence is more clearly discernible in the apocryphal literature. While elsewhere we do not find reflection about the relationship between body and soul, body and soul are here contrasted. A perishable body weighs down the soul (Wis. 9:15) The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God (Wis. 3:1). Pollution of souls is also mentioned (Wis. 14:26) It is especially bad when no healing can be found for the soul, so that it must perish eternally (Wis. 16:9)'

Thus we see that the Pharisees came into existence as Jewish thought began to embrace the influence of Greek philosophy. By this, the Pharisees began to adopt a Greek conception of what the 'soul' was in relation to the body; a distinction that was nonexistent in the Old Testament.

This concept naturally carried over into the teaching of the afterlife. The Hebrew sheol, and the Greek hades, which had been the place or state where all men went, good or bad, with no thought of future punishment or reward, also began to take on Hellenistic meanings which were foreign to the Old Testament.

Commenting on this change in Jewish teaching, the The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is again insightful:

'In Rabbinical Judaism, under Persian and Hellenistic influence, the doctrine of the immortality of the soul appeared, and this altered the concept of Hades.. (in which) reward and punishment begin after death. According to Josephus, this was the position of the Pharisees and the Essenes, in contrast with the Sadducees.

Under the influence of the doctrine of the resurrection Hades lost its role as the eternal resting place.. and became a preparatory, temporary resting place for souls until the resurrection. 2 Esd. 7:78-100 attempts to establish a compromise between the doctrines of immortality and of the resurrection. According to this, the souls of the righteous enjoy for a time in the beyond a foretaste of the blessedness which will be theirs after the resurrection. The ungodly, on the other hand, receive a foretaste of the punishment that awaits them after the last judgment. This compromise did not prevail in Judaism.' (emphasis mine)

By the time Jesus was born, the teachings of Greek philosophy had become thoroughly embedded into the thinking of the Pharisees. Nothing is more revealing on this point as the words of Josephus, himself a Pharisee. Let those who believe that the teaching regarding 'the afterlife' in Luke 16 originated with our Lord carefully examine these words:

'Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is the place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region, wherein the light of the world does not shine… This region is allotted as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one's behaviour and manners In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire… there is one descent into this region, at whose gate we [Jews] believe there stands an archangel with an host; which gate… those pass through that are conducted down by angels… ; the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world… ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see and rejoicing in the expectation of those new enjoyments… [with] the countenance of the fathers and of the just, which they see, always smiles upon them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham. But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand by the angels allotted for punishment, no longer going with a good-will, but as prisoners driven by violence; to whom are sent the angels appointed over them to reproach them and threaten them with their terrible looks, and to thrust them still downwards… but where they see the place [or choir] of the fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it. This is the discourse concerning Hades, wherein the souls of all men are confined until a proper season, which God hath determined, when he will make a resurrection of all men from the dead, not procuring a transmigration of souls from one body to another, but raising again those very bodies, which you Greeks, seeing to be dissolved, do not believe [their resurrection]… And to every body shall its own soul be restored… But for the unjust, they will receive their bodies not changed, not freed from diseases or distempers nor made glorious…

This sheds an entirely new light on the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man. The teaching was not a new doctrine at all, but the very embodiment of what the Pharisees had come to accept as the concept of life after death. In no more forceful way could Jesus rebuke them, than by formulating a parable out the very teaching whereby their traditions had made the word of God of none effect. If the Pharisees were going to teach the immortality of the soul against the plain statements of the Scripture; thus teaching as doctrine the commandments of men, then there was no better way of driving the point home than to introduce the testimony of the dead patriarch Abraham against them according to their own belief system.

'Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead'.

Someone might ask, 'Why would Jesus parabolicaly employ a false teaching, and thus give it his apparent sanction?' The answer is that Jesus didn't use the story with any reference to itself, but in order to introduce the testimony of a dead man. The goal was to impress upon them the lesson conveyed in the words of Abraham 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.' In the most forceful way possible, this was done by framing a parable based on their own theory of the death state in which they had made the word of God of none effect. Their own view admitted the consciousness of the dead, and thus their ability to speak on the subject Jesus sought to introduce.

Keep in mind the exchange between Jesus and the Pharisees leading up to this:

Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. Luke 16:13-15

The parable was a satire and a parody; addressed to his enemies for the purpose of confusion and condemnation, not instruction and doctrine.

Jesus used the proper name 'Lazarus' to teach a very specific lesson. If we study the time frame of Jesus' ministry, we will learn that Jesus confronts the Pharisees with this story on the way to Bethany after hearing of the sickness of his friend Lazarus.

Lazarus however had died four days before Jesus arrived in Bethany, but upon arriving, Jesus raised him from the dead. Of course the Pharisees would have been immediately reminded of what Jesus had said to them.

'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'

Not only was the raising of Lazarus a sure vindication of Jesus' authority as the son of God, but Lazarus himself would be a powerful witness against the false doctrine which Jesus had used his name to rebuke. This explains even more their vehement hatred, not of Jesus only, but of Lazarus, once they had heard that he had been raised from the dead.

Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead. But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.
John 12:9-11

But the irony of the parable didn't stop here but had even a greater fulfillment. J. W. Hanson offers an excellent exposition on the greater fulfillment which would befall the Jewish Nation.

But what does the parable teach? That the Jewish nation, and especially the Scribes and Pharisees were about to die as a power,... as a controlling influence in the world; while the common people among them, and the Gentiles outside of them, were to be exalted in the new order of things. The details of the parable show this: 'There was a certain rich man clothed in purple and fine linen.' In these first words, by describing their very costume, the Savior fixed the attention of his hearers on the Jewish priesthood. They were, emphatically, the rich men of that nation. His description of the beggar was equally graphic. He lay at the gate of the rich, only asking to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the table. Thus dependent were the common people, and the Gentiles, on the scribes and Pharisees. We remember how Christ once rebuked them for shutting up the kingdom of heaven against these. They lay at the gates of the Jewish hierarchy, for the Gentiles were literally restricted to the outer court of the temple. Hence in Rev. xi:12, we read; 'But the court, which is without the temple, leave out, and measure it not, for it is given unto the Gentiles.' They could only walk the outer court, or lie at the gate. The brief, graphic descriptions given by our Savior, at once showed his hearers that he was describing those two classes, the Jewish priesthood and nation, on the one hand, and the common people, Jews and Gentiles, on the other.

The rich man died and was buried. This class died officially, nationally, and its power departed. The kingdom of God was taken from them, and conferred on others. The beggar died. The Gentiles, publicans and sinners, were translated into the kingdom of God's dear son, where is neither Jew nor Greek, but where all are one in Christ Jesus. This is the meaning of 'Abraham's bosom.' They accepted the true faith and so became one with faithful Abraham. Abraham is called the father of the faithful, and the beggar is represented to have gone to Abraham's bosom, to denote the fact, which is now history, that the common people and Gentiles accepted Christianity and have since continued Christian nations, enjoying the blessings of the Christian faith.

What is meant by the torment of the rich man? The misery of those proud men, when, soon after, their land was captured, and their city and temple possessed by barbarians, and they scattered like chaff before the wind--a condition in which they have continued from that day to this. All efforts to bless them with Christianity have proved unavailing. At this very moment there is a great gulf fixed so that there is no passing to and fro. And observe, the Jews do not desire the gospel. Nor did the rich man ask to enter Abraham's bosom with Lazarus. He only wished Lazarus to alleviate his sufferings by dipping his finger in water and cooling his tongue. It is so with the Jews today. They do not desire the gospel; they only ask those among whom they sojourn to tolerate them and soften the hardships that accompany their wanderings. The Jewish church and nation are now dead. Once they were exalted to heaven, but now they are thrust down to Hades, the kingdom of death, and the gulf that yawns between them and the Gentiles shall not be abolished till the fullness of the Gentiles shall come in, and 'then Israel shall be saved.'

Lightfoot says: 'The main scope and design of it seems this: to hint the destruction of the unbelieving Jews, who, though they had Moses and the prophets, did not believe them, nay would not believe though one (even Jesus) arose from the dead.'

...The rich man, or the Jews, were and are in the same Hell in which David was when he said: 'The pains of Hell (Hades) got hold on me, I found trouble and sorrow,' and 'thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Hell.' Not in endless woe in the future world, but in misery and suffering in this.

But this is not a final condition. Wherever we locate it, it must end. Paul asks the Romans, 'Have they (the Jews) stumbled that they should fall? God forbid! but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles.' 'For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness is in part happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, There shall come out of Zion the deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is my covenant with them when I shall take away their sins. xi:11, 25, 27.

Christians can also learn another valuable lessen from this parable. Namely, that some passages of scripture require careful study to understand. It is a dreadful mistake to take these words out of the mouth of our Lord, and use them for the very purpose he sought to condemn. I hope that as we move on to study the rest of these passages that the reader will feel an even greater need to 'Prove all things'.

 

TO-DAY SHALT THOU BE WITH ME

And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke 23:39-43

The interpretation of this passage depends solely on the punctuation of the last verse, which rests entirely in the authority of men, and not in Greek manuscripts which had no punctuation of any kind up until the ninth century.

To many people, this verse proves conclusively that Jesus and thief dying next to him both went to paradise the very same day in which they died. This mindset seems to be so great that it's difficult for many to see that this interpretation depends entirely on the uninspired comma between the clauses 'I say unto thee', and 'To day shalt thou be with me in paradise'. If we place the comma after 'to day' we have an entirely different thought:

'Verily I say unto thee to day, shalt thou be with me in paradise'

The above phrase by no means implies that either Jesus or the dying thief would be in paradise that very same day.

Someone might say 'But that isn't even good English, so it can't be correct'; But Greek is not English. As we have seen, the bias of the translator will color the translation itself when the exact meaning is in doubt. The Greek text here literally says:

kai eipen autoo ameen soi legoo seemeron met emou

and said unto him verily unto thee I say this day with me

esee en too paradeisoo

Shalt thou be in the paradise

or 'Verily unto thee I say this day with me shalt thou be in the paradise'

We have heard this verse preached so many times that our minds are conditioned to pause after 'I say', but let the reader firmly understand that there is no authority in the text itself for doing this, and thus very dangerous to use it to teach doctrine.

One of the main reasons that dualists must make the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man into an historic narrative instead of a parable is because their interpretation of this verse demands that they do so. With a comma, they insert an uninspired pause between 'I say' and 'this day', forcing Jesus to say that both He and the dying thief would be in paradise that very same day. I can not stress enough, that this interpretation rests entirely on an English comma which is not in the Greek text. But this creates a problem for those who would read the verse in such a way; for after the resurrection Jesus plainly tells Mary that he has not yet ascended to the Father. Therefore, the text in Luke 23:43 demands an immediate paradise somewhere other than heaven, and the only other place such a thing is to be found, other than on earth itself at a future date, is in a passage which is admittedly obscure and controversial; Lazarus and the Rich Man. (Luke 16)

The whole thing is a theological monstrosity which seeks to uphold tradition while ignoring the plain statements of the word of God concerning the dead.

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. Gen 3:19

For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks? Ps 6:5

What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth? Ps 30:9

Let me not be ashamed, O LORD; for I have called upon thee: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave. Ps 31:17

Shall thy lovingkindness be declared in the grave? or thy faithfulness in destruction? Ps 88:11

The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence. Ps 115:17

His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish. Ps 146:4

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Eccl 9:5

Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. Eccl 9:10

For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth. The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day: the father to the children shall make known thy truth. Isa 38:18-19

'Yes' some say 'But these refer to dead bodies' Really? Consider carefully the words of our Lord 'Thus ye make the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition!'

Again, if we will just study, and compare scripture with scripture we can arrive at the correct meaning of the text

'Verily unto thee I say this day, with me shalt thou be in the paradise'

The above in no way demands that Jesus or the thief would be in paradise that very same day, because it connects 'this day' with 'unto thee I say', instead of 'with me'. Some will obviously object to this, protesting that I have used the uninspired comma to come to my conclusions the same way they have theirs. Fair enough; I will refrain from using the verse in favor of my position, if those who object agree to not use it to support theirs.

Another will argue that the verse, thus read, has no meaning, because it was obvious on what day Jesus was saying it, and therefore 'unto thee I say this day' is redundant. To this I would first answer to my dualist friends, that it is also quite obvious that 'dead bodies don't praise God', but you have no problem reading such a supposition into a text that demands you do so to maintain your theory.

There are, however, good scriptural reasons to suppose that Jesus did in fact mean 'I say unto thee this day'.

And Laban said, This heap is a witness between me and thee this day. Therefore was the name of it called Galeed; Gen 31:48

Observe thou that which I command thee this day: behold, I drive out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Exod 34:11

I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. Deut 4:26

Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, for ever. Deut 4:40

And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: Deut 6:6

Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them. Deut 7:11

All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the LORD sware unto your fathers. Deut 8:1

Beware that thou forget not the LORD thy God, in not keeping his commandments, and his judgments, and his statutes, which I command thee this day: Deut 8:11

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; Deut 30:5

Are we to suppose that all of the above passages are redundant because the thing being said is on the day it was said? No, the phrase 'this day' was a common Hebrew idiom used for emphasis to express the great solemness of the occasion.

The verse has no connection to the Greek and Babylonian myths about life after death, but was a direct answer to the dying thief's prayer. The prayer referred to the coming kingdom and the resurrection. 'I say unto thee this day'; this dark solemn day, on which, though they were about to die, the thief expressed so great faith in the coming kingdom, 'shalt thou be with me in the paradise'. The definite article in Greek text does not appear in our English Bibles. It was THE paradise Jesus referred to; the time when the Kingdom would transform the earth into the paradise which all of the prophets had foretold in such glowing language.

The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.

It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the LORD, and the excellency of our God. Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you. Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness shall waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes. And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein. No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there: And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with songs and everlasting joy upon their heads: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Isa 35:1-10

It was in this paradise that Jesus promised to be with the dying thief when he comes into his kingdom, not the 'Abraham's Bosom' of the Pharisees, and Greek and Babylonian philosophy. Once again we see these proof-texts refuse to support this theory. 
 

THE SPIRITS IN PRISON

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 1 Pet 3:18-20

We now come to what many admit to be one of the most difficult passages in the entire New Testament The interpretations of this passage are as numerous as the commentators which have endeavored to write about it. I myself do not claim to be an authority on the passage, but I do believe as has always been the case, that by asking God for wisdom, and being faithful in study of His Word, we can come to an explanation which is both scriptural and logical while not contradicting the plain teaching of other scriptures. While we may never know for certain the exact meaning of every facet of this passage, I do believe that it can be shown that the passage can not, and does not refer to the departed spirits of men in Hades. For the sake of this discussion, that is what I am concerned with proving although we will examine the other details to see if we can get an even clearer understanding of this difficult passage.

The phrase 'By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison' is the one that raises all the questions. Who are these spirits? Where is this prison? When did Christ preach to them? Why did Christ preach to them? How Did Christ reach to them? What did Christ preach to them?

In many cases we seem to be left without answers. I am aware, however, that some seize upon the phrase 'preached unto the spirits in prison' in an attempt to prove that Christ descended into the 'double compartmented' hell, and declared to the righteous souls his victory, and to the lost their impending doom. Any careful reader should see that such an interpretation is fraught with problems. First of all, the passage doesn't say Jesus descended into anything, nor does it say that he did the preaching while he was dead. Notice:

'put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which he went etc...'

Some have been taught for so long that this passage teaches that Christ preached while he was dead that it is difficult if not impossible for them to see that the passage says no such thing.

Furthermore, it doesn't say that he preached to all the spirits but those 'Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.'

It also says that he preached to the spirits 'in' prison, not ones that 'were in' prison. So, whoever these spirits were, they're still there. If it is argued that it refers only to the souls of the wicked dead, then we must still ask why he didn't preach to all of them and not just the ones from Noah's day?

The suggestion is made that he preached to all the spirits who died in the flood or before Noah's day, and some accepted him and some didn't. Those who accepted him he freed from prison, and those who didn't are still there awaiting judgment. But once we begin to read so very many inferences into the text, we can be more than sure that we have strayed far from the truth.

The difficulty in coming to a definitive understanding of the passage is very real, and I would encourage anyone who doubts this to read and compare the vast amount of material that is available on the passage. It is my belief that the Lord put the passage in the scriptures to spark our curiosity and inspire study on 'the deep things of God'. Whatever the meaning is, it will never be arrived at by simple or superficial study of the Bible.

Knowing that we are on difficult ground, first let us inquire as to the identity of the 'spirits in prison'.

First of all, men are never called 'spirits'; not one time in scripture, whether dead or alive; the possible exception being Hebrews 12:23:

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:22-23

Even here Paul is talking about men 'perfected' after the resurrection at which point they have a spiritual nature. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul draws the line sharply between the earthly nature and the spiritual. Men, dead or alive, are not currently 'spirits' in any sense of the word. Please see the detailed discussion of this verse in the chapter 'The Spirit Within Man'.

Whenever 'spirit' is used in reference to a being, it refers to God ('God is a spirit' Jn 4:24), angels ('Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?' Heb. 1:14), demons ('whose young daughter had an unclean spirit' Mk. 7:25), or men after the resurrection. ('A life giving spirit' describing Christ.)

Even the Dakes Annotated Study Bible, which zealously upholds the 'immortality of the soul', places a note on 'spirits in prison' which states; '10 Proofs that the Spirits are Angels'

We must conclude that the spirits in prison are angels, or fallen angels, as this is the only scriptural conclusion we can come to.

We get more information about who these angles might have been:

'Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water'

So these angels have some connection with the days of Noah, before the flood. So we see clearly three thoughts have emerged thus far:

- The spirits are angels.

- The angels are in prison.

- They are connected with the days of Noah and the flood.

By comparing scripture with scripture, we see this same pattern emerge in 2 Peter, but this time we get more information:

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell (Gk. tartaroo), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly; And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly; 2 Peter 2:4-6

The exact same thoughts emerge, but with more details:

- The spirits are in fact angels.

- God cast them into Tartarus to reserve them unto judgment.

- They are connected with the day of Noah and the flood.

- Their sin is somehow related to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Turning to the book of Jude, we are met with the exact same pattern, in similar language:

And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 6-7

The table below compares all the information we have concerning these angels.

If the above table serves any purpose at all, it should at least prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the 'spirits in prison' which Christ preached to, were not the departed immortal souls of men but angels. These angels are locked up in tartaros (whatever that is), but not Hades which was the supposed region to which Lazarus and the Rich man went. Thus, the entire line of thought that would endeavor to make this verse teach that Jesus preached to the departed souls of men in Hades, comes crashing down.

Before attempting to discern how, when and where Jesus preached to these spirits in prison, we need to dig deeper into the Bible in order to get a clearer understanding of the sin committed by these angels.
 

DIGGING DEEPER... NEPHILLIM, REPHAIM, ANAKIM AND RAPHA

Having shown that the 'spirits in prison' are not the souls of men but angels, the only rational place to look for more information regarding them is in the stories of the flood of Noah, and Sodom and Gomorrah. It is important that we have a proper understanding of the passage because it introduces into the Bible another race of beings which has bearing upon our study. Turning to Genesis chapter 6 we read:

And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Gen 6:1-4

If ever we have tread upon mysterious and holy ground, it's here. The precise meaning of this passage is also greatly debated, but it's agreed by many that the 'sons of God' referred to in this passage are the angels mentioned in 1 and 2 Peter, and Jude.

We are told that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were in like manner to the sins of these angels in 'going after strange flesh'; that is, some type of improper sexual relationship. Whereas the sin of the sodomites was leaving the use of the woman for sexual relations with other men, the angels here saw that the human women were beautiful and began to lust after them. In some way, these fallen angels were able to have sexual relations with human women and produce children. We are not told exactly how this could be, we are simply told that it is so and expected to believe it. For this sin they are reserved in prison unto judgment.

The progeny of these angels with women were called giants, or Nephillim in the Hebrew. They were in the earth in Noah's day, and also 'after that', so we may assume that such an event happened again after the flood. The comment that these hybrid beings became 'mighty men which were of old, men of renown' sheds great light on history and mythology. Here we have an explanation of the origin of Greek mythology, which was no mere invention of the human brain, but grew out the the traditions, memories and legends of these mighty beings. The fact that they were supernatural in their origin formed an easy step to them being regarded as gods to the Greeks. We also see in this an explanation of the problems which have forever perplexed engineers as to how the great pyramids and monuments of Egypt could have been built.

The production of a mongrel race between angels and women was a clear attempt by Satan to pollute the messianic line and stop the coming messiah. This was the primary reason why the flood was brought upon the earth, and also the reason why we are told that Noah was 'pure in his generations'.

We are told of these Nephillim again in Numbers 13:33

And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants (Heb. Nephillim), the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight. Numbers 13:32-33

We can see then that the conquest of Cannan and the Lord's orders to completely kill all the men, women, and children dwelling in that land also had something to do with again cleansing the earth of this polluted race of beings.

The mention of this hybrid race of beings occurs many times in the Old Testament under various names such as Anakim, Nephillim, Rephaim, and Rapha. Generally these Hebrew words are rendered as 'giants' in our English Bible. The Rephaim or Rapha are of importance to our study because the translation of these proper names in various Bible versions has led to some confusion.

For example, we read of this race of beings in Isaiah 26:19, although their identity is hidden in our translation:

Thy dead (Heb. Muwth) men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead (Heb. Rapha). Isa 26:19

Here, and in many other places as we will see, our translators have done us a disservice by translating the proper name Rapha as 'the dead', and in doing so conceal one of the greatest and most mysterious truths of the entire Bible.

Isaiah is prophetically speaking of the resurrection. The reader should note that the first mention made of the dead is 'Muwth' in the Hebrew referring to dead men, but the second mention of the dead is the proper name Rapha, the race of Giants or 'men of renown' mentioned earlier. It is important to see that this passage is not merely discussing the resurrection of dead men, but is drawing a contrast between how two different races of beings will be dealt with in the resurrection.

Of dead men it says they 'shall live.. awake and sing', but of the Rapha it says that 'earth shall cast' them out. The words for 'cast out' literally mean to cast away, and is in sharp contrast to those who rise out of the earth. We read of these Rapha again in Isaiah 26:13-14, but again the meaning is obscured in our translation:

O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead (Heb. Muwth) , they shall not live; they are deceased (Heb Rapha), they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish. Isa 26:13-14

Once again our translation has totally obscured the sense of this passage by translating the proper name 'Rapha' into the generic English word 'deceased'. The Rapha are the 'other lords' of verse 13- we know these to be the hybrid race between angels and men; the Giants and 'men of renown'. Here we get a clear picture of what Isaiah meant when he said the earth would 'cast them away'. These beings do not rise in the resurrection.

A more correct paraphrase of the verse would be:

'They are dead, the Rapha, they shall not rise. Thou hast visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.'

The angels that sinned have been kept for judgment, men that sinned will be resurrected, but this hybrid polluted race has been fully visited and judged by God and will not rise. Instead the earth will cast them away as refuse. It is important that we discern this in order to avoid forcing the scriptures into a contradiction. Jesus said:

Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, John 5:28

Paul states:

And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. Acts 24:15

The New Testament teaching is clear that all men will receive a resurrection. Isaiah is not contradicting this when he says the Rapha will not rise because they are not the pure genetic descendents of Adam for whom Christ paid ransom.

Another reason why it is very important that we discern the identity of these beings is because of the confusion which has resulted from the way some translations render Rapha. For example, Isaiah 26:19 in the New American Standard version reads:

Your dead (Heb Muwth) will live; their corpses will rise. You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy, for your dew is as the dew of the dawn, and the earth will give birth to the departed spirits (Heb. Rapha). Isa 26:19(NAS)

When some come to this verse and others in the NAS version where Rapha is rendered 'departed spirits', they may get the idea that these verses are speaking of an immortal soul, and a conscious part of man which departs at death. This however simply cannot be the case.

First of all the NAS has rendered a proper name, Rapha, as 'departed spirits'. There is simply no authority for doing this. The problem for most people lies in discovering the identity of these beings. Most times when there are mentioned, they simply can not refer to 'departed spirits'.

And in the fourteenth year came Chedorlaomer, and the kings that were with him, and smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham, and the Emims in Shaveh Kiriathaim, Gen 14:5

In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, Gen 15:18-20

The Philistines also came and spread themselves in the valley of Rephaim. 2 Sam 5:18

Obviously the Rapha, or Rephaim are a race of people, or beings. Just because their identity is difficult to establish, this is no reason to translate the word as 'departed spirits'. Furthermore, the NAS forces Isaiah into a contradiction:

The dead will not live, the departed spirits (Heb Rapha) will not rise; therefore Thou hast punished and destroyed them, and Thou hast wiped out all remembrance of them. Isa 26:14

Exactly how they can translate this verse in such a way, and then only six verses later say that the 'earth will give birth to departed spirits' is a bit difficult to say. The entire passage is clearly an allusion to the resurrection, but thus translated contradicts both itself and the New Testament teaching that there 'will be a resurrection, both of the just and the unjust'. Of course there is no contradiction if they had simply left the word Rapha untranslated.

So we see that these spirits which are currently in prison, are fallen angels whose sin was lusting after human women thus giving birth to a mongrel race of beings. This race was one of the primary reasons for the flood of Noah's day, and his orders to kill all men, women, and children dwelling in the land of Canaan. In the Bible they are called Nephillim, Rephaim, Anakim, Rapha, or Giants. In contrast to men and angels, these beings have already been thoroughly judged by God and destroyed. These will not get a future resurrection.

Returning now to 1 Peter 3:18 we know that these angels that sinned are reserved for judgment. We are told that they are kept in chains, they are in prison, and that God has cast them down to Tartaros, which has been mistranslated as 'hell' in our common version. Many questions still remain. Some people will still insist that Jesus went and preached to these angels during the three days and nights he was in the tomb. However, a careful reading of the passage will show that this is not the case:

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 1Pet 3:18-19

Please note that the text doesn't say that he preached while he was dead, but it was through the death, burial and resurrection that he went and preached. There are a few different interpretations on how exactly this took place.

One view suggests that Jesus himself didn't preach personally to the spirits in prison at all, but that it was by the death, burial and resurrection itself that his victory was preached. In fact the word 'preached' here is kerusso which means to herald, or to publish. In other words, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus was itself the herald or message to these spirits in prison.

The other view suggests that after the resurrection, Jesus himself went and heralded his victory to the spirits personally. I feel that this is probably the better of the two views because it attempts to take the passage as literally as possible. One thing we know for certain though is that no matter which view we choose, the preaching could not have been done until after the resurrection as the passage states.

We are left with the question of what this prison is. The fact is, we do not know. We are told that the angels are kept in everlasting chains of darkness, and that they were thrust down to Tartaros. Once again, our translators have 'helped us out' by rendering this word as 'hell' when it would have been better to have left it untranslated. Whatever the place is, it is not the hell of popular theology, and this is the only time the words appears in the entire Bible. It can be suggested that Tartaros is a literal prison house for angels, or a debased condition which God has held them in. I would refer the reader to our chapter on Hell for a more detailed discussion of Tartaros.

I believe at this point we have firmly established our original goal of proving that 1 Peter 3:19 cannot be used to teach that between Jesus' death and resurrection he went and preached to the immortal souls of men. We have also seen that a proper understanding of the passage is important because in brings to our attention another race of being which also figure into out study of the resurrection; the Nephillim, and Rapha. Failure to 'rightly divide the Word' has caused many Bible students to err and apply these verses to men instead of angels and their mongrel children. This has caused much confusion and forced the Bible into a contradiction. As has been the case in the past and will continue to be the case in the future, there really is no difficulty, confusion or contradiction unless you try to force an immortal soul into a passage where it doesn't belong.
 

LED CAPTIVITY CAPTIVE

But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Eph 4:7-12

At this point, it is very important to call attention to what I mentioned at the beginning of the chapter. All of these verses presented in this section are intertwined and rely on each other. We have seen so far that Jesus did not endorse the teaching of a two-compartment Hades and the teaching that souls were temporarily held there, but rebuked the Pharisees for holding this belief. We have also seen that Jesus did not promise the dying thief that they would be in paradise the very same day they died. In the last passage we studied, we saw that Peter did not say that while Jesus was dead he went and preached to the souls of men, but that after, or by the resurrection he went and preached to fallen angels.

The popular theory would hold that the 'captivity captive' which Jesus led when he ascended, were the souls of men he preached to in Hades and set free. The phrase 'descended first into the lower parts of the earth' is read as 'after his death, his soul descended into the lower, etc'. The biggest problem is that the text simply does not supply these details which are needed for such an interpretation, and neither do any of the other passages that are relied on to fill in the gaps. Remember, it was first the comment to the dying thief which created the need for a temporary holding place for souls. This was based on a single uninspired English comma. The temporary holding place is said to be described in the story of Lazarus and the Rich man, but as we have shown, the story was a parable and a satire which Jesus used for rebuke, not instruction. The whole idea of Jesus' soul descending into Hades and freeing the souls of men (leading captivity captive) relies on 1 Peter 3:19 where we have learned that the spirits in prison are not the souls of men at all, but fallen angels.

Someone will say 'But it says in Ephesians 4:8 that he freed the captive souls..' No, it says no such thing. It says 'he led captivity captive', or as another version reads 'led captive a host of captives'. Where is there an immortal soul? Where does the passage say that these are the souls of men? Once again you must make an inference, and I have gone to considerable length to show that the passages that these inferences are based on will not support this teaching.

You might say 'But it says he descended into hell and freed the captives'. It says absolutely nothing of the kind! Where does it say he descended into hell? Where does this passage say there were captives in hell? The entire doctrine is based on a faulty understanding of 1 Peter 3:19. Whoever these captives are, they are not the 'spirits in prison' in 1 Peter 3:19.

Ephesians 4:8-11 will not teach the popular theory no matter how you twist it. I realize that the natural tendency is to run this passage back to ones such as 1 Pet 3:19, and the story of Lazarus and the Rich man, but that's a classic case of circular reasoning. The true meaning of the passage will never be determined by reading in elements which are simply not there.

So what can we determine to be a true and unbiased understanding of this passage? First of all, those who read this passage and quote it to prove the immortal soul theory miss the entire subject of the passage. The passage is talking about Jesus as a victor being able to give gifts unto men. It is generally understood that Paul is here making a reference to Psalm 68:18:

Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them.
Ps 68:18

Because Paul is applying this passage to Jesus, he uses verses 9 and 10 to establish the identity of the one the passage apply to.

Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.

Paul is not attempting to here teach doctrine on where Jesus was during the three days and nights in the tomb, he is merely attempting to establish the identity of the one that 'ascended'. The one that ascended, is the one that descended; namely Jesus. This fits with what Jesus himself taught:

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
John 3:13

It is however in the phrase 'descended first into the lower parts of the earth' that people tend to read in concepts which are not in the passage, and which the context does not demand.

What is meant by the phrase 'descended first into the lower parts of the earth'? We are conditioned to automatically read 'hell', as in the Apostles Creed; 'descended into hell', but actually in Greek there are three possible interpretations of this passage.

The first of these would be read as a genitive of apposition; 'Into the lower parts; namely the earth' In this case the passage refers to Christ's incarnation and descent to the earth. 'The lower parts' are the earth. This makes sense and is in harmony with Paul's line of reasoning that the one who ascended to heaven is the one who came down from heaven. This has also been the opinion of many scholars. For example, the Geneva Study Bible says:

Down to the earth, which is the lowest part of the world.

The People's New Testament comments:

Paul, in applying this to Christ, shows that it implies that he must have descended from heaven, before his ascension to heaven.

The second interpretation of this passage would involve a genitive of possession; 'Into the lower parts which belong to the earth'. This would refer then to Jesus' burial in the grave. Again we find scholars who agree with this interpretation. Matthew Henry comments:

Into the lower parts of the earth; this may refer either to his incarnation, according to that of David, Ps. 139:15, My substance was not hidden from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth; or, to his burial, according to that of Ps. 63:9, Those that seek my soul to destroy it shall go into the lower parts of the earth. He calls his death (say some of the fathers) his descent into the lower parts of the earth. He descended to the earth in his incarnation. He descended into the earth in his burial. As Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so was the Son of man in the heart of the earth.

Matthew Henry here allows for either of the above two interpretations; namely that the passage is referring to Christ's incarnation or burial. The references to Psalms 139:15, and 63:9 are very interesting. In both these passages 'the lower parts of the earth' clearly cannot be 'hell', and this is precisely why careful Bible students do not automatically read such an interpretation into the text.

The third interpretation is that of a genitive of comparison; 'Into the parts lower than the earth'. This is the way the verse is read by the advocates of the popular theory. The 'parts lower than the earth' are said to be Hades.

The first problem with this, as we have taken time to show, is that Hades is never referred to as a holding place for conscious souls. While no one argues the Jesus went to Hades when properly understood as the grave or gravedom, there is not one passage to prove that he or anyone else's 'immortal soul' was conscious in that state. The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man will not allow for such an interpretation, nor 1 Peter 3:19, nor the dying thief. In addition to this, why didn't Paul just say that Jesus descended into Hades if this is what he meant? Why is there always such obscurity? Why is it always necessary to 'read between the lines' to establish the doctrine of the immortal soul if it's as clear as its advocates would have us to think?

We must conclude that while three interpretations of this passage are allowable, none of them allow for Jesus' conscious descent into a holding place for 'immortal souls'. In my own personal opinion, I believe the first definition fits best. Paul is only trying to establish the identity of the one who ascended in order to apply Psalm 68. The one who ascended, is the one who first descended to the earth in the incarnation.

So what are we to make of the phrase 'led captivity captive' or 'led a host of captives'? The answer is simple. Jesus took captive, all that hold us captive; sin, the devil, bondage, and the power of the grave. The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary states:

captivity--that is, a band of captives. In the Psalm, the captive foes of David. In the antitypical meaning, the foes of Christ the Son of David, the devil, death, the curse, and sin led as it were in triumphal procession as a sign of the destruction of the foe.

Matthew Henry comments:

Captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; see Judges 5:12. Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands.

John Wesley writes:

Having ascended on high, he led captivity captive -He triumphed over all his enemies, Satan, sin, and death, which had before enslaved all the world: alluding to the custom of ancient conquerors, who led those they had conquered in chains after them.

The spoils of victory which Christ took when he ascended, had nothing to do with the 'immortal souls'. He literally took 'captivity captive' by captivating those things which held men in bondage.

THREE DAYS AND NIGHTS
IN THE EARTH

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12:40

Was Jesus here teaching that he would be three days and three nights in hell? If by 'hell' or 'Hades' we mean simply the grave, then yes. But those who believe in the popular theory read much more into this passage than a simple statement that Jesus would be three days and nights in his tomb. From this they infer that the temporary holding place for souls before the resurrection is indeed in the center of the earth.

The reasoning goes like this: The rich man in Luke 16 died and went to Hades. Acts 2:27 says that when Jesus died, He also to Hades. Because Jesus said that he would be three day and three nights in the heart of the earth, then Hades, or the temporary holding place for souls, must be in the 'heart' or center of the earth. This is by no means exaggerating the matter. A popular tract called 'The Truth About Hell' by Terry Watkins, describes this very teaching:

When Jesus Christ died on the cross, He descended into hell. In Acts 2, Peter is speaking, verse 31, ' . . . seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in HELL'

When Jesus Christ died His soul went into hell.

And in Matthew 12:40, Jesus Christ says:

'For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the HEART OF THE EARTH. '

The Bible is clear — Hell is inside the earth!

Ephesians 4:9, says of Jesus: 'Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the LOWER PARTS OF THE EARTH.'

However, this creates a serious difficulty. First of all, as we have shown, the Greek Hades, and the Hebrew Sheol simply do not refer to a holding place for souls. They refer simply to the common grave of mankind, oblivion, or gravedom. Secondly, the very comparison Jesus himself uses refutes the popular interpretation that Hades is in the center of the earth.

If we look at the story of Jonah and the whale, we find this.

And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell (Heb. sheol) cried I, and thou heardest my voice. Jonah 2:2

Here, Jonah calls the whale's belly 'hell' or sheol, which is the equivalent of the Greek Hades. Are we to assume from this that all who die actually go the whale's belly? Absolutely not, no one believes such nonsense! However this is exactly how they read Matthew 12:40.

The meaning is simple; in the same way the whale's belly was the grave or 'Sheol' to Jonah for three days and nights, the earth would be the grave or 'Hades' for Jesus. The emphasis is clearly on the fact that Jesus would be entombed in the earth for three days and nights. There is absolutely no reason to read more into the text than what it simply says, and to this many scholars agree. The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown commentary states:

The expression 'in the heart of the earth,' suggested by the expression of Jonah with respect to the sea, means simply the grave, but this considered as the most emphatic expression of real and total entombment. (emphasis mine)

Matthew Henry states:

THOU WILT NOT LEAVE
MY SOUL IN HELL

For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.  Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day.  Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Acts 2:25-32

With this passage we will conclude our study of where Jesus was during his three days and three nights in the tomb. We have seen up to this point that none of the verses set forth to teach the popular theory will actually support such an idea. None of them contain anything even remotely approaching an explicit teaching of this doctrine, and none of them teach any part of this doctrine explicitly without assuming the ideas you are trying to prove.

When we consider this passage from Acts chapter two, we see that the only way anyone could have difficulty is to once again read in words and definitions which are simply not Biblical. Was Jesus' soul in hell (Hades)? Absolutely. Did Jesus' immortal conscious soul descend into the temporary holding place for other souls? Absolutely not! The problem comes from the very definitions of 'soul' and 'hell'.

The passage simply means that that God did not let Jesus' very being remain in oblivion or in the death state; nor did He let his flesh see decay. Verse 29 should make this apparent to any honest reader. Peter is here applying Psalm 16 to Jesus. He reasons that, although King David wrote this psalm, he could not have meant it for himself, but instead wrote it as a prophecy concerning Jesus. The reasoning is simple; the conditions which David wrote about could only apply to Christ, because they did not apply to David.

Here, those who teach the immortality of the soul, and the popular theory get caught in a trap. Let any honest reader look at Acts 2:29, and Peter's logic and try to square it with the 'immortal soul' teaching. Peter reasons that this passage must apply to Jesus because:

1) His soul was not left in hell, and

2) His flesh did not see corruption

Then in verse 29 he offers proof as to why this psalm could not have been talking about David;

'Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day'

The meaning is clear:

1) David is still in 'hell'

2) David's flesh saw corruption as is stated in Acts 13

For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption: Acts 13:36

The proof that Psalm 16 applies to Jesus and not David is that David is still in the Grave! Who could possibly fail to see that the simple, clear meaning of the passage is that Jesus was simply in His grave until His Father resurrected Him, the same way David will remain in his grave until the resurrection?

Let the reader firmly grasp what they are being told in verse 29. David is DEAD and BURIED. Who can fail to notice that Peter has equated the person and being of David with his body which is in the tomb. Peter does not say that this psalm can only apply to Jesus because Jesus' body was raised, whereas David's body wasn't. The psalm can not apply to David because HE (his whole being--not just his body) is DEAD and BURIED, and Jesus (the person, the being, and the soul) is ALIVE and RISEN.

If the real David, his immortal soul and spirit (the I AM of David as we are taught to believe) went to a temporary holding place for souls, then why do both Peter and Paul make the mistake of equating David's body with the very person of David. Peter says DAVID is DEAD and BURIED, and Paul say DAVID FELL ON SLEEP AND HE SAW CORRUPTION. Isn't this a bit odd if the body is simply a shell which houses an immortal soul or the 'real person'?

But this is by no means the end of the matter. Remember, all the verses we have looked at in this chapter are vigorously brought forth to prove that Jesus consciously went to a temporary holding place for souls when he died. The supposed purpose of this was to 'preach to the spirits in prison', 'free the captives' and 'move paradise to heaven'. However, when we come to Acts 2:34 we read an absolutely shocking statement which should remove any remaining doubt that this doctrine is a tragic theological monstrosity. Please do not take my word for it, let the reader look up Acts 2:34 in his own Bible and READ IT.

For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,
Acts 2:34

What?? This is after Christ has returned to heaven! This is after he supposedly descended into Hades to 'preach to the spirits in prison'! This is after he supposedly led all the captive souls to heaven! How are we to account for David's condition?

Paul says DAVID fell on sleep

Paul and Peter say DAVID saw CORRUPTION

Peter says it was Jesus who God didn't leave in HELL, DAVID IS STILL THERE

But most of all DAVID IS NOT ASCENDED INTO THE HEAVENS

How could anyone fail to see that this states explicitly what we have shown to be the truth from the start. Those who die must remain in their graves until the resurrection. They don't go anywhere. Of course we wouldn't expect those who cling to the immortal soul theory to ignore this verse without offering an explanation. However, the absolute exodus of reason and scholarship on this verse is amazing.

The Ryrie Study Bible, along with the Defenders Study Bible take a safe course of action and make no comment.

The Dakes Annotated Reference Bible states:

This refers to David's body in resurrection, not to his soul and spirit which are in heaven

Likewise, Matthew Henry states:

As David did not rise from the dead, so neither did he ascend into the heavens, bodily, as Christ did, v. 34.

That is, Peter was either very unclear, or just lied when he said DAVID was not ascended into heaven.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown have no comment, ditto the Knowledge Bible Commentary, the Geneva Study Bible, The People's New Testament, and John Wesley.

It would seem that those who vehemently cling to the 'immortal soul' have two options; either say nothing, or make a liar out of God. After proclaiming over and over that it is only the body that sleeps, only the body which goes to the grave, and that the real man, or soul and spirit are never equated with the grave, what could they possibly do with a statement such as 'David is not ascended into the heavens'?

Ask anyone who believes in the theory of the immortal soul what the real person is; the immortal soul and spirit, or the body which houses it? The unanimous answer will be that the real person is always the soul and spirit, and the body is just a shell. How are we to account for the absolute reversal of this teaching by both Peter and Paul? The fact is, you don't, and this more than anything is the reason most choose to remain silent on this verse. All of the works cited above which chose not to comment on the verse actually believe that David is in heaven. How do we account for their silence on a verse which explicitly states he isn't?

The simple fact is, no intelligible comment can be made. The only suggestion is the one given above which tries to make the verse refer only to David's body. The problem is, this looks so obviously suspect because you clearly have to read into the text a word that isn't there. Not only is the word 'body' not in the text, it is not even implied. If this is truly what Peter meant when he said these words then he was either very unclear or very careless. 

The fact is, nothing needs to be read into the text at all. The passage is so clear and direct that it needs no interpretation or explanation. Once again these problems only arise when you force the doctrine of the immortal soul into a text where it doesn't belong. Peter makes a comparison so simple that any child could understand it, and then draws a series of contrasts. David made a prophecy concerning Christ which could not have applied to himself because:

Christ's soul was not left in 'hell' (oblivion, the grave) David's was.

Christ's flesh did not see corruption
 David's did.

Christ's is not in his tomb which is visible for all to see
 David is still in his tomb as is visible for all to see

Christ ascended into heaven
 David did not ascend into heaven.

Is there anything even remotely unclear about this passage? Once again the reader needs to make a choice. It is the clear statements of God's word vs. the obscure 'proof-texts' and inferences of the 'immortal soul' theory.

HOME   TOP   NEXT   PREVIOUS