What The Rich Man and Lazarus Doesn’t Teach

Do not adjust your monitor!  This is truly a Theology Thursday post for the second consecutive week.  I used to be a bit more consistent in posting these, but I've found that this year I just don't have much to say. 

Sometimes these posts just fly off the fingers.  I'll read a passage, think a bit about it, jot down a note or two here and there, and then sit down and bang it out in fifteen minutes.  Other times, I'll ramble for a bit, take a detour into some meanderings, then digress my way back to the main rat hole, then shelve the idea for a month or ten, then delete the whole thing and start again, then rename it, then shampoo it vigorously with Pert Plus, making sure to rinse and repeat, and then just end up posting a book review.  I have some potentially awesome posts still waiting for that second shampooing.

I actually like to write theology posts soon after I've read a passage, but sometimes my schedule slips by a bit.  A good-sized bit.  In this case, I think I started working on this thing back in March or so, right about the time I read Love Wins.  And certainly this post is germane to that topic, or at least to answering a common objection to alternate views of Hell (other than Eternal Conscious Torment).  So, let's begin.

(Actually, I think this fits just fine, as my latest book review went with Luke 15.  Here we're in Luke 16.  Didn't plan that.)

One of the objections commonly raised to any expression of doubt in the doctrine of Hell as Eternal Conscious Torment is that Jesus clearly taught more about Hell than Heaven.  Now, I don't agree with this.  In fact, I'd argue he didn't teach about either very much.  (For a quick rebuttal of one popular "teaching about Heaven" passages, refer to a previous post of mine.)  But let's not get off track here.

Whether Jesus taught much about Hell isn't really the question.  The question is, "What did Jesus teach about Hell?"  If we eliminate all the passages about Gehenna, which may or may not be about Hell (read my take here), there's not much left over.  But what is left over is pretty important.  Of course, I'm talking about The Rich Man and Lazarus.

Now, some people think that Jesus is here telling a commonly-known tale, much like someone today might recite one of Aesop's Fables, without any implication of the story's being true.  But I'll concede, for the purposes of this post, that Jesus was teaching about an actual case of two actual men.  So, a quick recap (or go read it yourself):

A Rich Man and the beggar at his gates (Lazarus) both die after living very different lives.  Lazarus is carried to a place of comfort, the Rich Man to a place of fiery torment (noted as Hades in the Greek).  The Rich Man is in a bad way and, seeing Lazarus, asks Abraham (who evidently is in charge of the nice place) to have Lazarus drip some water down to him.  Abraham replies that he had all the comfort he's going to have during his life, and that there's no way to go from one chamber to the other.  The Rich Man then begs to have someone sent to warn his brothers of his fate, but Abraham replies that they have the Bible and should already know about it (and this is the point of the teaching, BTW).

So, what do we have here?  Well, it certainly seems to imply that there's punishment for evil people.  But, in fact, it also basically implies that it's about being rich or poor that lands you in one place or the other.  It almost looks like karma, because there's no commentary whatsoever on the faith of either Lazarus or the Rich Man.  But that's neither here nor there.

Those who take an Eternal Torment view of Hell will tell you that this story proves their point.  But if we step back for just a minute, I think it'll be clear that it teaches no such thing. 

You may be thinking, "Umm, Seth, it seems to totally teach that, bro.  Serissly."

Yeah, but it really doesn't.  The key thing to keep in mind here is that if we're talking about Hell, we're talking about something that takes place after the Final Judgment.  True, there may be some kind of pre-Hell for the damned before the Resurrection, and this story is a pretty good indication that there is.  And I do not have an issue with that.  Whatever the state of the damned is before the Resurrection doesn't really matter to any of the views of Hell.  Universalists, Annihilationists, and (insert clever "ists" term for people who hold the traditional view, ooh, maybe "Traditionalists") can all accept the idea of a temporary realm of torment between now and the Resurrection.  (This is not to imply that all people agree on this, but it's well within the range of belief in each camp.)

There's really no argument that Jesus is referring to a post-Resurrection timeframe, is there?  The Rich Man has brothers alive on Earth.  Case closed.  And not only is this before The Resurrection, but it's before Christ's Resurrection.  I'm not sure it matters, but thought I'd throw it out there.

Jesus' Teaching on The Rich Man and Lazarus says not one word about the state of the unbeliever after the Final Judgment.  I'm actually really curious if anyone disagrees on this point.  Feel free to jump in, because I definitely want to be corrected if I'm off base.  But let's stay on topic if we could.  And by that, I mean this post is not about the couple of verses in Revelation and other places that also seem to imply a fiery Hell.  Deal with this story and hit me with your best shot.

Now, let me be clear.  The Bible seems to teach that there is some kind of punishment after death for the damned.  The question is still, though, what is the result of that punishment?  Is it never-ending?  Does it end with the damned being consumed (my tentative position), or is it rehabilitative, resulting in salvation for all (my position only on my most optimistic days)?

Another thing to note here.  If you come at this from a Reformed perspective (which I don't, despite attending a Presbyterian church – Evangelical Presbyterian, for the record), you really can't take a Universalist position.  I get that.  It doesn't make sense for God to elect some to life and some to destruction if the destruction is only temporary.  Agreed.  It's the starting premise that we disagree on.  But again, different topic for a different day.

I'm going to have a tough time finding a topic for next week.  So don't look for a three-peat.  But maybe I'll rinse off my old post "Can a Heterosexual Be Saved?" (How's that for a provocative title?  Any clue why I've sat on it for a year or so?)