Answer to Kev: Universal Salvation 3

Kev said (Quoted Exactly)

Response Part 1

Carrie,

You said "First of all, all parables in the Bible are prefaced as such. The word “parable” is used 58 times in the Bible, yet not in the account of the rich man and Lazarus.". This statement does not logically mean that the Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable. You consistenly neglect to acknowledge that Jesus ony addressed the crowds in parables. This statement from Jesus overules any arguments that what He said was not a parable. Who are you

going to believe? Jesus or your own ideas? If Jesus is giving 5 parables in sequence, He has no need to state that the last one is a parable, it's kind of obvious.

This parable has nothing to do with warnings about loving money. When the Pharasees scoffed after the 4th parable because of their love of money, Jesus moved the subject on at the 5th parable.

Here He is talking about true riches, the inheritance of the Kingdom. The Pharisees knew exactly who the Rich man and Lazarus represented. The Rich man represents the Jews - hence the reference to being dressed in purple, the Royal line of Judah, and fine linen, the Levistical priesthood. 2000 years ago, all that remanined of the entire Israel nation were the descendants of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.

Lazarus represents the Gentiles who have now inherited the promises of Abraham. Lazarus is the Latin variant of the Aramaic Lazar, itself a variant of the Hebrew Eliezar. Eliezar was Abraham's Gentile servant who stood to inherit

everything, including the Covenant with God until such a time as Isaac was born. Here Eliezar lost out and was excluded until Jesus brought the Gentiles in.

Lazarus in this parable represents the Gentiles being in abject spiritual poverty, the dogs licking his wounds being another Gentile reference. Lazarus outside the Rich man's gate represents the Gentles being allowed no further than the Court of the Gentles at the temple. This was a physical barier that excluded them from God.

Now we have attained the living water from which the drop was to come to refresh the Rich Man's tongue. The Greek word translated as 'in torment' does not mean physical torment by fire, it means emotional anguish- check it out in Strong's. The Rich man was in emotional torment that He, the Jews, had lost out, and the Gentiles were in the place of favour.

The chasm represents the Jordan valley which has a piritual significance to the Jews as the barrier to the promised land - salvation and God's inheritance. Lazarus is now in the promised land, not the Jews. The reference to passing over 'diaperao' again confirms the crossing over of water to the promised land. Lazarus would not want to go back over to the Rich man's side in agreement with Paul when he stated that once we had tasted a new life in Christ, we cannot go back over to the law.

The reference to the Rich man asking that someone could be sent from the dead to warn his 5 brothers is this. A Gentle now in new life in Christ is symbolicaly passing from death to life, a spiritual resurection. The Rich man - Judah, had five brothers from his mother. To this day the Jews still refuse to listen to the Gentiles when the gospel is preached to them, and they also refuse to believe the prophets of the OT who spoke about Jesus.

In short this parable is a marvelous truth of God's acceptance of the Gentiles, and the rejection of Israel from the inheritance. It is in full agreement with the stories about wedding feasts, those invited making excuses and not coming in - Jews, and the dogs, the lame, the poor - Gentiles being compelled to come in and take their places.

It has nothing to do with being in a literal hell immediately following death for torment by literal fire. Hades is not hell, it is not a place of fire and torment. Hades is a silent resting place for all until the resurection in Jesus, or the 2nd resurection before the GWF. The old testament references to Sheol confirm this as does the Jewish definition of Sheol.

If you still do not understand the meaning of this parable, I can send you a study I have put together.

My Answer to Kev

You said, “You consistenly neglect to acknowledge that Jesus ony addressed the crowds in parables.”

My Answer: Did you ever read Matthew 13:14-16? Jesus said to His disciples, “Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: 'You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.

You said, “This parable has nothing to do with warnings about loving money. When the Pharasees scoffed after the 4th parable because of their love of money, Jesus moved the subject on at the 5th parable.”

My Answer: You just contradicted yourself, Kev. What was Jesus’ motive for moving on to the account of Lazarus and the rich man? Oh! The love of money.

You said, “all that remanined of the entire Israel nation were the descendants of Judah, Benjamin and Levi.”

My Answer: How do you explain the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2? Acts 2:5 states, “Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.”

You said, “Lazarus is the Latin variant of the Aramaic Lazar, itself a variant of the Hebrew Eliezar”.

My Answer: “Jesus” is the same whether it is spoken in English, Hebrew (Yehowshuwa), Aramaic (Isa) or Greek (Iesous). Notice none of them sound the same. Lazarus is of Hebrew origin and means “God is my help”. Variants of a name do not mean it is the same name or person. Joshua is the Hebrew variant of the English name Jesus. Was His name Joshua? No. In fact, Jews call Him Yeshua, the shortened version of Yehowshuwa (which means YHWH Saves).

You are claiming that Lazarus represented the Gentiles. Even Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha was not a Gentile. Why would Jews mourn the loss of a Gentile? John 11:33 states, “When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled.”

If you look up the name Lazarus in this “parable” (as you call it), it is the Greek name Lazaros and is defined, “the name of two Israelites.” Who is Israel? Jacob’s offspring (Jews). Gentiles were not grafted in until Peter and Paul took the message of the gospel to them. Jesus said in Mat 15:24, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

The Court of the Gentiles was accessible to one and all regardless of faith or national origin. This is where the Jewish money-changers set up their tables. You cannot assume Lazarus was a Gentile based on the “Court of the Gentiles”.

You're saying the Rich Man in hell represents "Judah"? You do realize Jesus came from the tribe of Judah. How many sons did Jacob have, including Judah? Twelve (six from Leah). Why would "Judah" and his brothers be lost, first of all; and why would he only be concerned for his five brothers and not his other six? And his sister, too? You can't assume a name or a tribe of this rich man. Stay with the facts.

You said, “Now we have attained the living water from which the drop was to come to refresh the Rich Man's tongue.

My answer: Really? Did the rich man attain even one drop of water in this “parable”? Absolutely not.

You said, “The Greek word translated as 'in torment' does not mean physical torment by fire, it means emotional anguish- check it out in Strong's.”

My Answer: Okay, I did. Here is the truth: The Greek word for torment is basanos meaning a touchstone (a dark stone used in testing metals), hence examination by torture, torture. Strongs: torment. Perhaps remotely from the same as basis (through the notion of going to the bottom); a touch-stone, i.e. (by analogy) torture -- torment.

Let’s go a step further; Luke 16:24 states, “And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.'”

“Water” literally means water.

“Agony” is the Greek word odunao to cause or suffer pain, including anxiety, grieving, sorrow and torment.

“Flame” is the Greek word phlox and means a literal flame; from phlegó (to burn; to "flash" or "flame"); a blaze -- flame(-ing).

You said, “The Rich man was in emotional torment that He, the Jews, had lost out, and the Gentiles were in the place of favour.”

My Answer: If this were true (which it’s not), why would he even think that his five brothers (also Jews) could possibly believe, even if someone went to them from the dead ~ especially Lazarus, who you falsely claim was a Gentile? You confirm this in your latter paragraph.

You said, “The chasm represents the Jordan valley which has a [s]piritual significance to the Jews as the barrier to the promised land – The reference to passing over 'diaperao' again confirms the crossing over of water to the promised land.”

My Answer: Look up the word chasm. You will see it has no water. Also, when it comes to the judgment of the Lake of Fire, there will be no sea in the New Earth (Rev 21:1). The rich man could not simply catch a boat from Hades and sail on over to Abraham’s bosom, anymore than Lazarus could or would even want to get to him.

You said, “Lazarus would not want to go back over to the Rich man's side in agreement with Paul when he stated that once we had tasted a new life in Christ, we cannot go back over to the law.”

My Answer: So, you admit there is an element of permanence in this “parable”. This indicates this is an “after-death” experience, for the “parable” states they both DIED. Luke 16:22 “Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.”

While alive, can people fall away from the truth? Absolutely. Just read 2 Tim 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth.” Does this say “they will”, “wanting”, “for themselves”, “their own desires” “will turn away their ears”? I don’t see God doing this for them in this verse. Other references to look up are Heb 6:4-6; 2 Thes 2:9-12; Romans 1:26-28.

You also admitted that the Jews were "those invited [to the wedding feast], making excuses and not coming in." That's what salvation is, an invitation (the called who respond; the saints). Are you making excuses for not coming in?

You said, “In short this parable is a marvelous truth of God's acceptance of the Gentiles, and the rejection of Israel from the inheritance.”

My Answer: Now, you can see you are completely in error.

You also said,It has nothing to do with being in a literal hell immediately following death for torment by literal fire. Hades is not hell, it is not a place of fire and torment.”

My Answer: Now, you can see you are again in complete error.

You said,Hades is a silent resting place for all until the resurection in Jesus, or the 2nd resurection before the GW[T]”.

My answer: Hades is obviously not silent, nor is it a resting place. Was the rich man silent or resting? No and No.

Did you know the first resurrection is for believers and the second resurrection is for unbelievers? The second resurrection is not the “resurrection in Jesus” as you stated.

Revelation 20:4-7:

“Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them [believers].

“And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand [those saints coming out of the Great Tribulation];

“and they [believers and martyrs] came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

“The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed.

“Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.”

The Great White Throne Judgment takes place post-millennium, after Satan is cast into the Lake of Fire (Rev 20:11). The second resurrection is shown in Rev 20:12-14:

“And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.”

Now, let’s confirm those who are judged according to their deeds:

2 Cor 11:14-15 “No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.”

See, Eph 2:8-9 tell us about the saved: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works [deeds], so that no one may boast.”

There is NO condemnation/judgment for those who are IN CHRIST JESUS (Romans 8:1). Believers will NOT take part in the second resurrection.

Even in the account of the believer’s works that are tested by fire and are burned up, while the believer is yet saved, this is not judgment upon HIM. It is a matter of determining the believer’s REWARDS. Some will be “least in the kingdom of heaven” and this would be an example of such an one (1 Cor 3:15; Mat 5:19).

More by this Author


4 comments

Carrie Bradshaw profile image

Carrie Bradshaw 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Kev, I’m not going to post the entirety of your comments, for you can write hubs of your own to restate what your beliefs are, which you have done (what you already said in this hub). I will, however, address where you continue to err:

Regarding the love of money, it is another “master”. Mat 6:24 “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” The “Rich Man” represents those who put money as a god, who die and go to Hades. This would include unsaved Jews (Israelis) and the lost of the world. This particular "parable" (as you call it) had nothing to do with Gentiles.

You said, “The ten tribes disappear from history.”

Jeremiah 31:9 “With weeping they will come, And by supplication I will lead them; I will make them walk by streams of waters, On a straight path in which they will not stumble; For I am a father to Israel, And Ephraim is My firstborn." Ephraim-the ten tribes no longer severed from Judah, but forming one people with it.

If only three tribes remained as you say, how do you explain the 144,000 (12,000 from each of the 12 tribes of Israel – Jacob) shown in Revelation 7:3-9? These come out of the Great Tribulation to come.

You said, “The NT makes reference to Gentles who became Jewish converts. So this verse in Acts 2:5 is easily understod.”

Acts 2:5 once again “Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven.” Now, the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit was upon JEWS. The Gentiles were not grafted in until Peter had received the Holy Spirit and went to the Gentiles. Acts 10:44 is the first recorded account of this. The Apostle Paul wasn’t even present on the day of Pentecost and didn’t start going to the Gentiles until Acts 18:6.

You said, “Just like when He was when refering to those invited to the wedding who are rejected (Pharasees, scribes etc), and others (Gentiles) are complelled to come in and take their places.”

Anyone can read the parable of the Wedding Feast in Mat 22. First of all, were the Jews rejected? Verse 3 states, “And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.” Verse 5 states, “But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business.” These were the Jews.

Were the Gentiles "compelled" to come in and take their places? Verse 9 states, “Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.'" The Gentiles were INVITED.

Now, let’s just look at verses 10-14: “Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both EVIL and GOOD; and the wedding hall was filled with dinner guests. But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes [EVIL], and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?' And the man was speechless. Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, because many are INVITED, but few are chosen.’" This makes is clear that the “few chosen” are those who are covered in the white robes, which is the righteousness of Christ that only comes through faith in Him. Once this evil man was bound and cast out, there was no coming in again.

I agree that the Gentile woman was called a “dog” by Jesus Himself; however you can’t claim Lazarus was a Gentile because a dog licked his sores. You must look up the word Lazarus in the Greek and the definition is “the name of two ISRAELITES”. Jacob was renamed Israel and Israelites, in the Bible, are JEWS.

You said two things that contradict: “We have the living water. Jesus promised us a well spring of life.” Then you said, “And if you were on fire, why would you ask for a drop of water? I think you would at least want a bucket.” Precisely. If this “water” the rich man asked for represented the living water of Jesus Christ, he would have asked for more than a drop.

You want to state that the word for “cross over” in regard to the chasm indicates some sort of water (you reference 1226), but it is not so according to Strongs. It is 1224 and then 1276, not 1226. People can look up every word in this verse here: http://biblos.com/luke/16-26.htm

Your comment was too long and was cut off, so you will have to complete it in another comment.


Carrie Bradshaw profile image

Carrie Bradshaw 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

ATTENTION READERS:

FURTHER UNIVERSALIST COMMENTS WILL BE DENIED AT THIS TIME, AS I SIMPLY DO NOT HAVE TIME TO RESPOND. I WILL NOTIFY IN THE FUTURE, IF I WILL BE TAKING YOUR COMMENTS. MAY GOD BLESS ALL WHO READ UNTO HIS GLORY. AMEN.


"Quill" 6 years ago

Hi Carrie, love what you have completed here, not all that sure you will get this or not but God Bless you and know that you are loved by the Father

Blessings


Carrie Bradshaw profile image

Carrie Bradshaw 6 years ago from Manhattan Author

Bless you, brother Quill! I so appreciate your words of life. May Jesus Christ be praised!

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working