LARARUS AND THE RICH MAN PARABLE:

"THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE LIVING AND THE DEAD OR CONTINUITY OF LIFE"?

The parable of "Lazarus and the selfish rich man" is often used by Literalists as a means to deny God's most generous gift of Spirit Communion where the Veil between this world and the next is penetrated. The Fundamentalist also uses this parable to spread an erroneous idea that there is instant perfection at physical death for those adhering to Fundamentalist belief, and to reinforce a belief in an eternal Hell for those not adhering to Fundamentalist belief; hence, knowledge of God's mighty plan of redemption is withheld from humanity.

Basically, the Literalist says that the different states into which people go at death are completely separate and never the twain shall meet, neither shall there be any change for the inhabitants of those conditions, i.e. everlasting punishment. There is a very definite misunderstanding in the Literalist's mind about what Jesus meant in this parable.

Christ's parable shows Lazarus and the rich man dying: "...the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried". With absolutely no sleeping or being unconscious for any length of time, they are very much alive in Hades (Luke 16:19-31).

Generally speaking, Hades in the minds of the Greek Jews at the time represented both Paradise and Hell, i.e. Hades represented the Afterlife in the minds of many. "Abraham's bosom" was a term used for Paradise. The rich man, however, finds himself in a very different part of Hades which is a different locality of Hades-life to that of "Abraham's bosom" and is extremely hellish in nature - it is a hell.

Hades, according to the Rabbinical writings, is the place to where both the "just and righteous" and the "unjust and wicked" go after physical death. The rich man gives a clear indication as to the nature of the environment of that particular aspect of Hades into which he passed, and indeed, which he had built up for himself, as he went to his "own place", in the same manner that Acts reports Judas as having done (Acts 1:25). The change from physical death to the next state of being is reported by Jesus - when relating the death of both the rich man and Lazarus - as being immediate; this was an instant transition (throwing more light onto the "mystery" which Paul told us about: "...we shall all be changed in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye").

The selfish rich man lifted up his eyes from his hell: "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" (Luke 16:24), but Abraham replied: "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".

Apart from anything else, we see here in Christ's parable the true course taken by the soul after the death of the body; we see clearly that the Literalist doctrine or dogma (receiving salvation solely by acceptance of a belief, i.e. Fundamentalist-type "born again" salvation) has little bearing on the soul's position after death. Rather, the rich man finds himself in a hellish place through utter selfishness, and Lazarus finds himself truly compensated for the hardship endured during his life - Divine Law at work - indeed, Divine Justice. The conditions into which each had passed is based solely on how they had lived their lives, and claiming allegiance to a religious metaphysical belief system does not change that.

Why the Fundamentalists would choose this parable to support his or her way - the dogma that salvation is achieved only by an acceptance of a metaphysical belief and not through living itself - is more than a little baffling; they claim that one can only go to Paradise if one accepts the fact that Jesus was a "blood sacrifice" (a human in place of an animal) which took away all of the sin of anyone who believes it and thus is the only way to be "saved", and ignore the fact that Lazarus did in fact belong to a pre-Crucifixion society which followed Mosaic Law and he did not need to be "born again" to go to Paradise. And as the Fundamentalists themselves point out, this was said by Jesus Himself. However, what Lazarus did do was very Christ-like, he suffered mentally and physically, and while the dogs licked his open wounds he was persecuted by poverty and a wilful lack of charity from people including the rich man and his family for which they received their cumuppance. It is so plain what this parable is about.

Abraham continues: "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". The Literalist assumes that this statement by Abraham means that there is never any contact between those who have passed over. That is where the biggest error arises.

The "gulf" mentioned is not a gulf of a 'physical' nature, it is a gulf of moral and spiritual attainment, or lack of it.

Certainly, in terms of locality, the conditions in which Lazarus and the rich man are different, and yet both localities are simultaneously coexistent with the earth and those living upon it. The rich man assumes that he can visit his relatives who are clearly depicted as living on the earth at the same time that the rich man was in one of the hells and Lazarus was in Abraham's Bosom; Christ does not relate Abraham as saying that the rich man's relatives are long dead and "asleep" in a grave, but He declares the opposite: Christ confirms the assumption of the rich man that his relatives are living on the earth at that very moment, thus Christ confirms co-existence. But (as Abraham points out) it would be a pointless exercise attempting to prove to his relatives the existence of life after death - and the inevitable reaping of consequences - to those who did not heed any type of spiritual law, and in the case of the rich man's relatives this was the Law of Moses and the warnings of the prophets: "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 16:31).

The Literalist is asked to consider this sentence with deep honesty and ask himself or herself why Jesus did not relate Abraham as saying that the rich man's relatives could have had the Literalists' "born again" salvation doctrine that would instantly free them from their sins, thus becoming "saved" and enabling them to be transported to Paradise at physical death, as was Lazarus the beggar; but instead, Jesus clearly states that they had the Law of Moses as a religious system to save themselves from the same fate as the rich man's torments. If the Literalists' "born again" salvation doctrine had been the reason for Our Lord's earthly sojourn, then surely He would have made a point of saying it here and not something entirely different.

All this shows many things, not least that there is and always has been a process of spiritual evolution and involution occurring. The hells, Paradise and earth all exist at the same time and each goes to his "own place" at physical death to undertake the next stage of spiritual life he has made for himself. And it sounds as if the next stage of life for the rich man's relatives was going to be a similar state of torment; they were creating a great gulf between themselves and Divine happiness too.

Christ's parable (Lazarus and the rich man were used in parabolic form by pre-Christ jews) is about how to behave and live during the earth life and He is giving a severe warning of how it will be for those who ignore their duties to the less fortunate, allowing them to suffer needlessly, and instead simply serve themselves; it is a severe warning because He wants people to realise it is a reality. Christ was showing that although there was communication between those in very different conditions, there could be no relief for those who had brought upon themselves - through negligence and their own self-seeking motives - the consequences that must be faced.

In other words, we are being told that the selfishness of the rich man was such that on his arrival in his new state, there was no escape from his predicament because of the health of his soul-body, and the consequences he must face. He had done it to himself through utter selfishness and must suffer the results.

Thus, there was not going to be relief from his burning torment by any cooling water (from Lazarus) because not only was there no accomodation for such a thing in his present environment but the scales of Divine Justice could not be altered and he therefore had to reap what he had sown and there was no relief possible, not even a temporary respite from that which scorched.

The literalistic religionist encounters a great stumbling block with this parable told by Jesus, especially the sentences of Luke 16:26, because he or she would say that it declares that nobody can cross between Heaven and Hell, i.e. "...they which would pass from hence to you cannot". But a basic understanding of the mechanics of the Spiritual World reveals the truth behind this parable.

When a person is sent to jail then he forfeits the privileges that the free man has, and in the rich man's case, the "sentence" he had brought upon himself did not include the quenching of his fiery torment with "water". So he pleaded for water but even those who wanted to bring things from the free man's heaven could not, because such things cannot exist in the rich man's hellish condition and such a prison-house does not have the environmental capacity or potential to contain such things as water.

Neither was there any escape for the rich man or others in the same self-imposed hellish predicament to a more congenial condition (until, by expiation, all debts were paid): "...neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence". He was in his own condition and the gulf was the gulf he had fixed himself.

But let us not forget the wonderful love of Christ. However permanent the position this self-imposed torment may appear to be to one who has put himself there (and very permanent it seems to such a one), there is always a time when, after a hellish purification and correction (or "age-long pruning"), such a one will have eventually had enough selfishness 'pruned' away, to be able to learn something of the selfless nature of the Gospel of Love from Christ and His angels, and slowly but surely be able to lighten the conditions around. The gulf which was fixed through selfishness and wickedness, can, piece by piece, be transformed into a bridge by learning selflessness, compassion and love, and all those Divine qualities exemplified in the life of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:18-20, 4:6).

God is all-wise and all-loving, and has accounted for everything in His Plan for the redemption of His children. There may be those of God's children who fix a great gulf between their self-centred, unsympathetic and uncompassionate natures, and the spiritual health and attainment to be gained by learning from God and those ministering spirits who work for Him who would relieve them of their "debt", as it were, but the Law of Consequences which has been in force from the very beginning for the redemption of God's children cannot be altered; those who have imprisoned themselves in such a way must remain in their self-created jail until all "debts" are paid, yet because of God's love and wisdom, they shall at some future time be free of their darkness - God has ordained it.

Indeed, we can see the state of such a one in another parable told by Jesus: "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" (Matt. 18:34). It is impossible to disassociate this parable from the parable of the selfish rich man under discussion because the state of the wicked servant and the selfish rich man is the same state, albeit in parabolic form. The Fundamentalist will probably have missed this association due to his erroneous assumption that he, and those who think like him, will be the only ones who are not going to Hell for eternity. However, it is important to notice the word "until" in Christ's parable about the wicked servant. He, like the selfish rich man, must reap what he had sown "until" he should "pay all that was due".

This is brought powerfully home to us by the example of the loving Shepherd Who seeks the lost sheep "until He finds it" (Luke 15:4), when He left His dead body on the Cross and went in His spirit to teach people who were once wicked (who had since undergone a long 'pruning' period and were now ready to learn) about His Gospel of Love; Christ was: "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" (1 Pet. 3:18-20).

NB: *by the Spirit* This should be 'in the spirit' with a small 's' but the interpreters, being conditioned to a limited salvation doctrine, altered this to 'by the Spirit' to fit in with their scheme of things as continuity of life was either consciously or subconsciously ruled out by them i.e. they could not contemplate that the spirit leaves the physical body alive and sentient, or they could not condone the claim that those killed in the Flood were able to be redeemed from the hells. The Greek words and possible definitions are given below with the correct translation to show how the Translators arrived at their rendering:

"...thanatoo sarx de zoopoieo pneuma en hos kai poreuomai kerusso pneuma en phulake pote apeitheo hote hapax makrothumia theos ekdechomai en hemera Noe..." (1 Peter 3:18-20)

"...put to death in the flesh but caused to live in the spirit in which also he pursued the journey to proclaim the gospel to spirits in the place where captives are kept who in time past refused belief and obedience when at one time the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah..." (1 Peter 3:18-20)

thanatoo: to put to death
sarx: flesh, the flesh, denotes mere human nature
de: but
zoopoieo: to produce alive, to cause to live
pneuma: the spirit, vital principal which animates the body, a life giving spirit, a human soul that has left the body, God's power and agency distinguishable in thought from his essence
en: in, by, with
hos: who, which, what
kai: and, also
poreuomai: to lead over, carry over, transfer, to pursue the journey
kerusso: to be a herald, to publish, proclaim openly, proclamation of the gospel
phulake: a watching, place where captives are kept, a prison
pote: in time past
apeitheo: refuse belief and obedience
hote: when
hapax: one time
makrothumia: patience, forbearance, longsuffering
theos: God, of God
ekdechomai: to look for, wait for, await
hemera: the day(s)
Noe: Noah

"For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit..." (1 Peter 4:6)

Tony Bisson