Does God Predestine People to Hell? - A Response to Gavin, Part II

 The second word that is translated as ‘hell’ in Greek is “tartaroo.” This word, transliterated, is “Tartarus.” This word, unlike ‘Gehenna,’ is only used one time in the Greek scriptures. It follows that this one verse, then, contains all of the info God wants to share with us about Tartarus. So, lest we make any presumptions, let’s read the verse – first in the KJV, then in the CLV. Here’s 2 Peter 2:4–

For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment…

With this verse, even the blue letter bible falters, proclaiming in its definition that ‘Tartarus is the lowest level of hell,’ and compares it with ‘Gehenna.’ Yet these are separate words, with separate meanings. Once again, let’s take a look at the verse, apart from our own presumption that this is some location of “eternal hellfire,” from a more accurate translation, with our pattern of sound words:

For if God spares not sinning messengers, but thrusting them into the gloomy caverns of Tartarus, gives them up to be kept for chastening judging…

While much more similar to its KJV counterpart, there are some important differences, as well as a note we should add in the Greek. Before we get to that, however, we must make note of the fact that we are speaking of sinning messengers. In this passage, we are not seeing the eternal hellfire location for all bad people. We are seeing the punishment for sinning messengers (or ‘angels,’ if you are attached to that word.) You would not tell me with a straight face that sinning messengers, a term used of celestial beings in various parts of Scripture, are men???

What we read of Tartarus is the fact that they are gloomy caverns. The term “chains” in the KJV is mistranslated, and should read “caverns.” “Dark” or “gloomy” chains is nonsense; Peter is not Robert Frost, nor is this a poetic letter. He is in the midst of listing God’s righteous ability to judge.

In the Concordant version, you may notice the word “chastening” is in the verse. This word is found in one of the three oldest manuscripts, being Codex Sinaiticus. I’m not going to argue over the efficacy of this word being included, though it is sensible that these messengers are indeed being humbled in their judgment, similar to humanity (Ecc. 1:13,) and considering the scope of Paul’s statements in 1 Cor. 15:20-28, and Phil. 2:9-11.

So that we cover all of our bases, let’s stop focusing on the verse itself, but the surrounding context, so that we don’t mistake a figure or something. In the three preceding verses that started the chapter, Peter predicts false teachers that will be swiftly destroyed. In verse 4, he begins documenting great examples of swift judgment from God, including the worldwide flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the sentence for these sinning messengers.

This reveals that we are indeed dealing with a judgment. The blue letter bible is incorrect to correlate a judgment during the millennial kingdom in the vale of Hinnom with a judgment concerning angelic beings, as are the KJV translators (and any other English translators) for making such an assumption that God does not make. It’s disingenuous, and an inexcusable adulteration of God’s word (2 Cor. 4:2.) To remove the point God makes in favor of an idea man believes makes more sense to them personally falsifies the text, and those that are teaching this idea directly, especially upon realizing this error, are ignorant to the heart of God (Rom. 1:18-32,) hypocritical in their love (Rom. 2:1-4,) and will be judged on Judgment Day by God in accord with this knowingly false action (Rom. 2:5-15.)

One more thing, and I feel this is vital: it is senseless to use Greek mythology here to discuss “Tartarus.” If you’ve studied Greek mythology, then you know that Cronos and his evil Titan pals were sent to ‘Tartarus’ by Greek gods, where they were not chastened with their judgment, but bound in chains in anger, seemingly to this very day. But Greek concepts do not contextualize God’s word. It’s the other way around. The Greek concept twists things – not God’s word.

This verse is a fascinating study, but it’s evident that none of this is pointing to, “If you sin, you go to Tartarus too! Mwahahaha!” This verse clarifies that Tartarus is explicitly for sinning messengers. It does not discuss anything after, because Peter, writing to the circumcision, is providing a limited scope. The words are true, but do not provide the final state of every messenger. And most importantly, torment is notably absent from the entire chapter. The flood discussed drowns an individual, but this lasts mere minutes, not eternally. Sodom and Gomorrah’s destruction is not given a length of time in Genesis, but it’s not at all painted as anything longer than immediate destruction, not eternal. That this verse would magically prove anything eternal or torment when neither of Peter’s other examples indicate a never ending judgment is simply inconclusive.

*   *   *

Once again, after studying this important word, we have not found a place of eternal torment in the original Greek text. Pastor John’s very first claim, that people who believe that God is unjust for burning anyone eternally, is becoming evidently more the case.

We will now cover the third and final word that is translated as “hell” in most modern English translations, being “hades.” The Greek elements of the word hades are “UN-SEEN.” The construct of the word alone does not denote judgment, torture, or eternality, but to be unseen. Once again, we will be studying the word in an accurate translation of the Greek New Testament, to gauge its contextual usage – does this word equate to eternal torment?

The following ten verses will be considered:

-         Matt. 11:23

-         Matt. 16:18

-         Luke 10:15

-         Luke 16:23

-         Acts 2:27

-         Acts 2:31

-         Rev. 1:18

-         Rev. 6:8

-         Rev. 20:13

-         Rev. 20:14

Before I begin, there are a few things to get out of the way. First, I want to clarify that the word “unseen,” as this word should be translated in English, is used far more often in the Old Testament (with 70 occurences of the word.) I will not be going over all 70 uses of this word, but first I will be discussing many of its uses in the Hebrew Old Testament (where the word is not hades, but sheol.)

Second, I want to reiterate the truth of the soul of man. Oftentimes the word soul and spirit are mixed for… kicks and giggles, I guess. God makes clearer the distinction. I quoted it earlier, but here is Genesis 2:7, the most comprehensive explanation as to what the soul is:

Yahweh Elohim formed the human out of soil from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human became a living soul.

Body + spirit = soul. Simple enough?

This distinction is crucial, because God says something crucial concerning our soul, the combination of our body and spirit, in Psalm 9:17. Observe:

The wicked shall return to the unseen, all the nations, forgetful of Elohim.

This lines right up with Paul’s clarification that no one is righteous (Rom. 3:10-11.) All are condemned to death (Rom. 1:32.) Everyone is wicked. Everyone’s soul, that is, the combination of our body and spirit, become unseen at the end of our life. The soul is unseen.

Now, this is not a breakdown of the word ‘soul,’ though there are many that believe in the pre-existence of everyone’s soul, or that the soul is immortal (which follows right in line with Satan’s first lie, that you won’t die.) That study is for another day. Genesis 2:7 should suffice in our basic and functional understanding of the distinction between body, spirit, and soul, for the purposes of studying the word ‘unseen.’

Finally, we have one more thing to cover, and that is death, or thanatos, in the Greek. A rudimentary study of the word will show us that death is not what orthodox Christianity makes it out to be, but is assessed by God as a penalty, a return to the soil. Here is Genesis 3:19–

By the sweat of your brow shall you eat your bread, until you return to the ground, for from it were you taken. For soil you are, and to soil you shall return.

Job cries about this, in Job 30:23–

I know that You are returning me to death, to that house appointed to all the living.

And again, in Job 34:14-15–

If He places it in His heart concerning him, He can gather back His spirit and His breath to Himself; All flesh would breathe its last together, And humanity would return to the soil.

Yes, there’s still more evidence as to death’s nature! Plenty more. Here’s Ps. 104:29–

You conceal Your face; they are filled with panic. You gather away their spirit; they breathe their last And return to their soil.

Here’s one of my favorite examples, of which proponents of ‘eternal conscious torment’ have yet to explain to me:

All are going to one place; All have come from the soil, and all return to the soil.

So, wait… everyone is going to the same… hell? God is just, they say.

Here is another example, from the same book, Ecc. 12:7–

…the soil returns to the earth just as it was, And the spirit, it returns to the One, Elohim, Who gave it.

If the soil returns to the ground, and the spirit returns to God, then death is the separation of the body and spirit referenced in Genesis 2:7, which effectively removes the soul from our visual. It is now unseen.

Isn’t it wonderful how much sense God makes?

With this in mind, let’s begin exploring the original list of verses by which “unseen” is used, and see if any of these words proclaim an eternal hell.

First, let’s take a look at Matt. 11:23 in the KJV:

And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Hmm. Capernaum, a city, is a location in hell, now?? That simply doesn’t sound right. It would do well for a student of Scripture to stop accepting this crap and study from a text that will more accurately reflect God’s thoughts. Here is the same verse, presented in the CLV:

And you, Capernaum! Not to heaven shall you be exalted! To the unseen shall you subside, for, if the powerful deeds which are occurring in you had occurred in Sodom, it might remain unto today.

The city of Capernaum, the city in bulk, as the context provides (Matt. 11:20,) is no longer seen. Not “in hell,” either Gehenna or Tartarus, but no longer visualized. It is used in contrast with heaven, which is very much a place that is seen.

Once again, there is zero description in this passage that “hell” as popularly translated is a location of eternal torment, as the very construct of the word, and its use here, indicates otherwise. (Side note: Luke 10:15 makes the same claim here, so I will not be repeating myself here.)

Here’s another one, Matt. 16:18 in the KJV:

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Boy, is this verse a powerhouse for Christian media! How many times have you heard that phrase, the ‘gates of hell?’ I’m not even Christian, and I must have heard it a million times over!

Obviously, you, being the intelligent human being that you are, should know by now that the word ‘unseen’ should take the place of ‘hell’ here. When properly translated, the verse is rendered:

Now I, also, am saying to you that you are Peter, and on this rock will I be building My ecclesia, and the gates of the unseen shall not be prevailing against it.

If there were ever a verse that highlighted the difference between Peter’s evangel and Paul’s evangel (aside from Gal. 2:7-8, that is,) it’s here. Peter was used by Christ to build His ecclesia during the Pentecostal administration, broken down in the first half of Acts (I go into more detail on this in my study of the word “eon.”) The body of Christ, however, is a separate administration, delineated and led by the ascended Christ (Acts 9:1-5,) manned by Paul (Gal. 1:1-12, 2:7-8.) The kingdom evangel is separate from Paul’s evangel (Matt. 4:23, Rom. 1:1.) The differences are so great that some theologians have extricated Paul from Scripture, as he seems so discordant with the rest of the Bible (a good example is his breakdown of faith apart from works in Rom. 4, contrasted with James’ decree that faith apart from works is dead in Jam. 2:10-17.) This, of course, is yet another logical error, because Peter himself vouches for Paul, while highlighting that his message is difficult for most to understand (2 Pet. 3:15-16.)

With all of that considered, let’s discuss the gates of the unseen (doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as ‘gates of hell,’ but it’s accurate and that’s what matters.) This shows us that the unseen, while something we cannot see, is very much a powerful force which will be coming against the ecclesias discussed here. This phrase represents the powers and principalities by which we, in the body of Christ, are fully guarded against (Eph. 6:12.) The lies of a bastardized Bible cannot blind our apprehension that God is indeed righteous, and His penalty, death, is the righteous penalty He inflicts, as opposed to any idea man conjures concerning how to deal with disobedience.

*sigh* Okay, let’s explore Luke 16. This chapter here is the one that people always use to claim that Christ will send unbelievers to hell. Here’s Luke 16:23 in the KJV:

And in hell he lifts up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Here, in the KJV, now, after 41 books, and halfway through Luke, you finally get the idea, with the mistranslated word, out of context, that “hell” represents a place of torment. This passage (not just this specific verse, but the entire parable Jesus presents here,) is the base of operations for most eternal torment believers. This passage, when not studied carefully, finally implies that hell is a place of torment.

The reason it’s so useful to an eternal torment believer is because, even when you translate this properly, you will still get the idea that ‘the unseen’ is a place where unbelievers go to be tormented after they die. Here’s the verse in the CLV:

And in the unseen, lifting up his eyes, existing in torments, he is seeing Abraham from afar, and Lazarus in his bosom.

The thing is, there’s still no context, and if you, reader, have never read this verse before, then you really have no choice but to theorize, and let your imagination run wild. So that this doesn’t happen, I’m going to quote the entire parable here, from 16-31. I’m going to underline some important phrases throughout. I want you to take a moment and ask yourself the following questions: Why is Christ using this imagery in His parable? How does it relate to the kingdom evangel that He is heralding?

Read carefully–

“Now a certain man was rich and he dressed in purple and cambric, daily making merry splendidly. Now there was a certain poor man named Lazaurs, who had been cast at his portal, having ulcers, and yearning to be satisfied from the scraps which are falling from the rich man's table. But the curs also, coming, licked his ulcers. Now the poor man came to die and he is carried away by the messengers into Abraham's bosom. Now the rich man also died, and was entombed.

And in the unseen, lifting up his eyes, existing in torments, he is seeing Abraham from afar, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he shouting, said, 'Father Abraham, be merciful to me, and send Lazarus that he should be dipping the tip of his finger in water and cooling my tongue, for I am pained in this flame.'

Now Abraham said, 'Child, be reminded that you got your good things in your life, and Lazarus likewise evil things. Yet now here he is being consoled, yet you are in pain. And in all this, between us and you a great chasm has been estabished, so that those wanting to cross hence to you may not be able, nor yet those thence may be ferrying to us.'

"Yet he said, 'I am asking you then, father, that you should be sending him into my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may be certifying to them, lest they also may be coming into this place of torment.' Yet Abraham is saying to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them!' Yet he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone should be going to them from the dead, they will be repenting.' Yet he said to him, 'If Moses and the prophets they are not hearing, neither will they be persuaded if someone should be rising from among the dead.'"

Against all odds, this passage, the second half of Luke 16, seems to completely go against the verses that thoroughly establish that death is a return of the body and spirit to their respective origin, and the soul’s absence in the unseen. The KJV, which honestly has far fewer translational errors in this passage, seems to confirm what the Baptists, Pentecostals, Calvinists, and others have been teaching for centuries.

So why did I underline seemingly pointless details, like ‘purple’ and ‘cambric’ that the rich man is dressed in? Why did I underline the rich man’s question, and the dogs that licked Lazarus’ ulcers?

Let’s start with the word “parable.” What Jesus is sharing here is commonly understood as a “parable.” Jesus begins giving five parables (each respectively starting in Luke 15:3, 15:8, 15:11, 16:1, and of course, 16:19.) The word “parable” is used multiple times in the four accounts, and kicks off Luke 15:3. The Greek elements of the word “parable” are “BESIDE-CAST,” denoting a statement which is cast beside, or parallel to, its spiritual significance. It is a figure of likeness, a simile to reality, but not true as to fact. The story of the prodigal son, for example, which begins Luke 15:11, has a true spiritual message, but it is not true as to a documentation of literal event. The same is true of the sower of the field, the man finding a pearl in a field, the slaves who are given talents, and so on and so forth.

Luke 16:19 is no exception. It is a parable, discordant with established facts concerning death for a reason. It is to be cast beside, or parallel to, its spiritual significance in the story of the Scriptures. It must be considered as such, and I will go over important phrases throughout the passage to clarify its symbolism, as opposed to the idea that it is documenting a literal event.

First, look at the word ‘certain.’ The word in Greek is tis, and usually means “any” in Greek. The word is an indefinite pronoun, which immediately confirms that this is not a definite event, but is introducing an archetypal ideal (don’t believe Him? Cry about it.) The phrase does not at all say “There was a man” (cf. Job 1:1,) but the “certainty” of a rich type of man, as well as a poor type of man, being Lazarus.

The rich man is merry. This doesn’t mean he’s inherently evil by any means. Nowhere does the passage say this, apart from remaining ignorant to the poor man. Morality is oft considered during this passage because, well, people want to see bad people in hell, existing in torments. Yet here, the “merry splendid”-ness of the rich man is the very same happiness entertained by saints (Acts 2:26, Rom. 15:10, 2 Cor. 2:2, Gal. 4:27, Rev. 11:10, 12:12, 18:20.) Thus we have no reason to believe that this man is inherently wicked. We read that Lazarus suffered evil things, but was not himself evil. We read that the rich man was gifted good things, but we do not read that he was inherently good. Morality simply isn’t the focus, here, and again, to force this consideration when God does not ask it of us is to doubt His word with our ideas.

The more we study the detail of the passage, the more we’re going to find that this entire parable is figurative, and, if it were fact, then God is not telling us the truth, but made into a liar. Abraham said to the rich man, “Child, be reminded that you got your good things in your life, and Lazarus likewise evil things. Yet now here he is being consoled, yet you are in pain." This cannot be true as to fact, but must retain a spiritual symbolism, because the rich man, receiving good things in his life, does not automatically mean that he must be in pain in an afterlife (whatever 'afterlife' may mean - this word also is not found in Scripture.) Gen. 13:2 clarifies to us that Abraham was himself a rich man, a very rich man. We don't know his physique (though many portrayals of him in Christian theology present him as a feeble old man,) so I won't comment on that - the fact remains that God documented him as being incredibly wealthy, and throughout his life, that wealth only gained (this was the reason he had to split with Lot, and much of his riches are also gained in his interactions with King Abimalech.)

We are also never told that Lazarus was not consoled by the rich man. Do you allow homeless men shelter in your home? Typically, this is not the case of most home owners. Does this make most home owners inherently wicked, for not sharing their home with a random homeless man?? I would sure hope that your moral ideals are not this shallow! The only reason one would embellish this detail is if, of course, they are trying to turn the passage into one of a moral condemnation to hell.

The reason man takes morality into account here is because they read passages like 1 Cor. 1:18-28, where God says He is picking the weak, the unwise, the ignoble, and stupid. They infer that Lazarus was one of these men, and prop him up as the good guy because he ended up in Abraham’s arms, while the rich man did not. While it is true that God is picking the weak, the contemptible, the stupid now, this was not necessarily the case when Jesus was walking the earth. Under law, obeying God brought blessing (Deut. 28:1-14) – blessing that is not so dissimilar from that of the rich man. It is the affliction brought onto Lazarus that God said would befall a man who misbehaved under law (Deut. 28:15-24.) He held the same ‘boils’ of Egypt (Deut. 28:27,) that could not be healed (Deut. 28:35.) By all accounts of the law’s noted blessings, the studied Jews of the day had every reason to believe that the rich man actually had God’s favor, and the poor man had God’s malediction.

The story does not dwell on any righteous morality at all, but a law of averages. “Rich man has something now, has nothing later, whereas the poor man has nothing now, has something later.” This, of course, is not at all the message of the law or grace, which enlightens us even further that the passage is not concerned with obedience, but something else.

The death of both characters pivots the story into a new phase. We know that this law of averages is not how God works, so we can firmly establish that Jesus is saying something else entirely, here. In order to grasp it, we must accept a very difficult fact – one that may make you turn your eyes away in disgust, but one that must be confirmed and understood if we are to continue:

Much of the Bible is not true.

There, I said it. I know, it’s a very frustrating saying, and feels so wrong to say, but you must understand. Take this verse, for example, Genesis 3:4–

Not to die you shall be dying!

On its own? The statement is bs. Who said it, but the serpent to Eve? Of course, we would call the serpent a liar, and his statement false. In fact, Eve’s response to the serpent was in itself an elaborate falsification of God’s initial law given to Adam!

Let me stop messing around. Much of the Bible is not true – not to say that the Bible itself is false. The presentation of each and every event is historically accurate, when you’re paying attention to the grammar. But the Bible itself is full of people who don’t know what they’re talking about. Most of everything Job’s friends tell him, for example, is bullshit philosophy that they reasoned out for themselves. True as to fact? I think not – God shuts them down, starting in Job 38. The student of Scripture would do well, again, to carefully consider the context of a verse, because just saying this:

And in hell he lifts up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

On its own, is bullshit. It must be considered in its context, with every word we’ve looked at so far. If we don’t, then we lose the meaning of the passage and begin to make erroneous claims about the rest of Scripture, in order to make it make sense with our skewed perception of morality, that bad men will never repent and must be eternally tormented for it. We have not yet seen a verse that states that this is true. We’ll continue through this passage, now, but it must be made clear that morality is simply not the central focus of the passage, and anyone telling you this is revealing their bias against Jesus’ point (2 Cor. 11:13-15.)

The fact is that this is an impressive parable, but it is a figure. It is not false in that it is presented by our Lord, and it succeeds in proving the point to the Pharisees that it is set out to accomplish! But it is not true as a literal statement, for there are a hundred literal statements concerning death as a return in Scripture, that we’ve already covered, that further reveal that this is figurative.

What is this a figure for? I hear you asking. Well, I’m glad you asked! The most popular interpretation (apart from hellfire damnation doom burning) is that the rich man represents Israel, and Lazarus represents the nations (as indicated by the ‘curs,’ the ‘dogs,’ which Jesus calls the nations in handling the Canaanite woman in Matt. 15:22-28.) Israel apparently dies in 70 A.D., at the destruction of the second temple, and the nations die…

Well, come to think of it, no one really tells you when the nations die. It just apparently happens at some interval. But sure, theorize about it however you’d like. I’m sure theorizing to force something to make a new idea is exactly what God wishes us to do! That’s certainly why He put the Bible here!

Anyway, the theory that the rich man represents Israel is contrary to reality, because upon the destruction of their temple, Abraham’s blessing has finally been established among the nations, and Paul explicitly tells us that at present, in Christ, there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (Gal. 3:27-28.) It is further evident that, in the story Jesus is telling, Lazarus is unable to help the rich man. Yet Jesus Himself explains that the nations that assisted Israel will be blessed during the judging of the nations (Matt. 25:31-40.)

Now, is the bosom of Abraham literal? I didn’t think so. Here’s A.E. Knoch on this figure:

“We are forced to acknowledge one of two positions. The only tenable one is to take it as the Lord's auditors took it. They were accustomed to use Abraham's bosom as figure of the highest felicity. Their vivid oriental imaginations clothed the abstract idea of blessedness with appropriate concrete forms. This presented no difficulty to their eastern minds. Many stories almost identical in its figures were common in their traditions.”

In other words, to be in Abraham’s bosom is the highest honor to them. They saw it as the greatest achievement to obtain. Let’s continue reading Knoch:

“It was natural for the Jew to seek for a sign. They preferred to have someone rise from the dead rather than listen to Jehovah's words as recorded by Moses and the prophets. But, when another Lazarus, Mary's brother, did come forth from the tomb, having been in the unseen three days, what did they do? They sought to kill him! And what did he report as to the realms of the dead? Not one word! Why? Because there was nothing for him to tell! Had he some tale like this, which would uphold their traditions and give the lie to Moses and the prophets, he would have been the petted idol of the day.”

The truth of the day, folks, is that the passage here is not concerned with works of righteousness, but faith. Abraham says, “They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them!” The point of the story is to bring the Pharisees back to the original text. The reason I underlined ‘purple’ and ‘cambric’ at the beginning there? That represents the cambric of the priest (Ex. 25:4, 26:1, 26:31, 26:36, 27:9, 27:16, 27:18, 28:5-6, 28:8, 28:15, 28:33, 28:39,) and the purple is the rich color of Israel’s kingship (Jud. 8:26, 2 Chron. 2:7, Est. 1:6, 8:15, Dan. 5:7, 5:29, as well as the same verses in Exodus.)

The law of averages presented is not at all something we should be heralding as true to fact, but understanding that these verses are insulting the Pharisees, running their own broken theology to its logical extreme. They love Abraham, but Christ is making it clear that works in the flesh don’t put you in Abraham’s position. They can’t rejoice as descendants of Abraham, priding themselves on circumcision, if they are busy rejecting the very faith that circumcision is a sign of (Rom. 4:11.)

This type of logical arguing, through figures full of… I guess “irony,” are called “Epitropes.” It takes your opponent’s argument and runs it through to its logical extreme. Many people tend to implement their own logical fallacy in this process, but, as this is our Lord, that’s simply not what’s happening, here. He is assuredly the One most capable in all creation to righteously utilize such a figure, and He does to great effect, here. He is taking what the Pharisees believe and throwing it back at them.

The Sadducees deny the resurrection of the dead (Mark 12:18,) so they would take their riches and enjoy them merrily, as the rich man does in the Luke 16 passage. The Pharisees, however, believed in an ‘intermediate state,’ that one will have a conscious bliss or misery before the resurrection of the literal body, so they were far more stingy with their money. They were ‘fond of silver,’ and spent it carefully. They saw a Sadducee in the rich man, and, in the Pharisees’ hatred for the Sadducee’s actions, would have loved to see them tormented, as the rich man was.

Christ couldn’t rationally continue pointing out their error. He had done much of this during His career, but what happens when you tell a devout religious or political advocate that they’re wrong?

Doh, they clearly always listen and just believe the true words of God! It happens all the… wait, there’s a WAR in the Middle East??

*sigh* Right, ‘the unseen.’ Let’s wrap up this story, which will finish contextualizing the infamous verse. If the Pharisees saw a Sadducee in the rich man, then they loved to see him tormented. Christ very realistically portrays their idea of a horrific torment.

But, by the end of the story, Christ turns things around on them, without regard as to whether they realize they’ve been played or not. This is the way an “Epitrope” works. The rich man claims he has five brothers who do not hearken to Moses and the prophets. These men, these brothers, represent the Pharisees. He pulls a sleight of hand by initially framing them as though they could be Lazarus (not spending the oh-so-precious money given them by God lol) and then pulls the rug out from under them, revealing that they are right there with the Sadducees in their insubordination to God. They claimed that Abraham was their father while doing the work of their father, the Adversary.

Did the Pharisees recognize this? Probably, as they still sold him to the Romans. It’s doubtful that they believed He suddenly conceded that their idea was correct, and they knew that their theology was completely wrong, as very early in Jesus’ ministry, they recognized Him as a teacher (John 3:2.) Nonetheless, Christ clearly appeals to faith in the passage, faith in the text, which, during His ministry, was the law and the prophets. Today, we can rest in faith in Paul’s evangel, presented through Christ after His incredible act at Golgotha, His resurrection, and His ascension to the right of God.

*   *   *

Here’s the scary part, and I’ll use an early example from Genesis 4 to clarify just how bad this is. When Cain is branded, in Gen. 4:15, the sign is said to be a mark from Yahweh denoting that no one is to smite Cain, lest Cain be avenged sevenfold. Yet, some x amount of years down his lineage, his descendant takes what was a mark of shame with pride, proclaiming in Gen. 4:24 that “If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-seven fold.” He took what was a fool’s mark as a sign of power.

Right, the scary part: Is this not what most sects in Christian theology are doing now? I mean, come on guys, open your eyes! Don’t you see the divine comedy in this?? Christians are taking a story that was designed to shame the Pharisees, and basing their entire moral compass around it. They might as well say, “If the Pharisees shall be avenged sevenfold, then the Calvinists seventy-seven fold!” Indeed, the view of ‘hell’ today is far worse today than even that of the greatest Pharisees who rejected Christ, and it’s just accepted as fact, without a careful consideration of the context!

This is horrific. It reveals that most of the world is doing exactly what God said they would be doing in the end days – denying Him, His word, not correctly cutting the word of truth, and denying the love of God. This foolhardiness accomplishes exactly what Jesus said it would – it denies Him as Lord, and as King, in denying His stated penalty for transgression, and moreover denies His heart, which He displays extravagantly throughout His earthly sojourn.

*   *   *

What was the point of all that? Well, when studying the passage, both apart from the notion that ‘unbelievers go to hell,’ and ‘hell is a place of eternal torment,’ we find that this passage is not affirming that rich people are going to be ‘tormented in fire,’ but mocking it, while enlightening us to the exact opposite notion. If there were ever a passage that more fully disregards the notion of hell, apart from Jeremiah 19:4-6 and 32:30-35, it is Luke 16. Never thought that this passage proved the exact opposite, hmm? Lest we follow in the Pharisees footsteps, we would do well to apprehend the satire here and step away from their mistake, to more fully appreciate the true love and grace that sweeps across every page of Scripture.

*   *   *

And so what we have learned…

-         “Tartarus” is the second word mistranslated as ‘hell’ in most popular English versions

-         Tartarus is used once in the text

-         Tartarus is a location for sinning messengers, and no ‘burning’ or ‘torment’ is stated at all

-         To remove the point God makes in favor of an idea man believes makes more sense to them personally falsifies the text, and as such they doubt God

-         “Unseen” is the third word mistranslated as ‘hell’ in most popular English verses

-         The word “unseen” is used seventy times in the Old Testament, and ten times in the New

-         Soul = body + spirit (Gen. 2:7)

-         The wicked (all the nations – Rom. 1:32, 3:10-11) shall go to ‘the unseen’ (Ps. 9:17.)

-         Death is a return of the body to the soil (Gen. 3:18-19,) and the return of the spirit to God (Ecc. 12:7, Luke 23:46.)

-         Capernaum is ‘unseen’ to this day, just as Sodom was (Matt. 11:20.)

-         Paul teaches a separate evangel from Paul (Gal. 2:7-8, Matt. 16:18, Gal. 1:12, Matt. 4:23, Rom. 1:1)

-         “Gates of the unseen” represents the celestial powers and principalities by which we, in the body of Christ, are armed against (Eph. 6:12.)

-         Luke 16:19-31 is part of a five-fold parable, which shows us that it is not true as to fact (the word certain, in Luke 16:19, being indefinite, indicates this fact)

-         Luke 16:19-31 is an Epitrope, where Christ takes the Pharisees’ ‘intermediate state of the soul’ belief and runs it to its logical extreme, in which they are included in their own prescribed torment

-         Luke 16:19-31 implies a law of averages, which is not how God works, but how man works – man wants equality, whereas God delights in contrast (1 Cor. 1:18-18)

-         Luke 16:19-31 does not concern morality, but faith

-         Much of the Bible is not true ­– not that it is not factual, but that it includes accounts of liars and parables, which must be understood in their context (ex. Gen. 3:4, Job’s friends, and Christ’s parables)

-         Satan’s followers today have been ‘transfigured into apostles of Christ’ (1 Cor. 11:13-15)

-         The Pharisees’ hardheadedness concerning an ‘intermediate state’ in the unseen has been transfigured into a lie concerning an ‘eternal hell within an intermediate state,’ making the lie today much, much worse

-         Luke 16:19-31 teaches the opposite, highlighting that the idea of you ‘existing in torments’ in the unseen is silly and a doctrinal lie, just as that of the Pharisees’ father, the Adversary, produces

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing