{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05606681617817647, 'fraction_numerical': 0.046516124042997445, 'mean_word_length': 4.48525980911983, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 10, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Luke 16:19-31: Intermediate State of the Soul

This study seeks to determine the meaning of Luke 16:19-31. The question of whether this passage teaches intermediate state of the disembodied soul after death has been a theological conundrum. In Lucan context, both thematic and linguistic considerations suggest that the passage can be a pre-resurrection tradition. Having studied the setting in which Jesus tells this parable and Lucan context, this study, employing a quasi-allegorical method, concludes that the presentation of the unseen world represents events and class of people in the eschatological judgment.


Introduction
In Luke 16:19-31, a life and afterlife story (Plummer 1977, 390-1;Borland 1978, 158) is told about a certain rich man and a poor man called Lazarus. This story has spawned a considerable discussion among biblical scholars, commentators, and systematic theologians. The discussion concerns the literary integrity and theology of the story. Of the latter, some have taught that the belief in an intermediate state of the soul finds its confirmation in this passage, hence, biblical. The consciousness of Abraham, Lazarus, and the rich man in afterlife, as it is argued, betrays the dualistic view of human nature (body-soul equation) that the disembodied or immaterial aspect lives on after death (Erickson 1998, 545, 554-7;Grudem 1994, 821-2;Womack 1995, 248-51;Marshall 1978, 636;Jeremias 1964-1976TDNT, Vol. 1, 146-9;Borland, 158;Reiling and Swellengrebel 1971, 571-2;Kendall 2004, 286-7;Morris 1986, 252). Based on this passage, Wayne Grudem can confidently say that the OT believers, upon their death, "entered immediately into heaven and enjoyed a time of fellowship with God" (Grudem,822). He insists that the unbelievers enter into "a state of eternal punishment immediately upon death" and "their bodies will be raised and united with their souls" (Grudem,824). With reference to unbelievers' punishment, Joachim Jeremias argues that the use of hadēs instead of geenna indicates a provisional state of the punishment of the wicked, particularly in this story (Jeremias, Vol. 5, 769;Vol. 1, 146-9;Cf. Drury 1985, 149-50;Morris, 253;Stein 1992, Vol. 24, 424). On the other hand, other scholars believe that the passage does not demonstrate an intermediate state of the soul (Black 1996, 282;Nichol, 830-5;Blomberg 1990, 203-8;Evans 1990, 249;Geldenhugs 1983, 427-9;Plummer, 390-8;Liefeld 1984, 990-2;Wright 2002, 80;Hultgren 2000, 113-6). A picture of realized eschatology is painted with this story of afterlife to describe the final destination of both the righteous and the wicked, but not necessarily an intermediate state of the disembodied (Hultgren,113;Cf. Marshall,637). It is so argued that squeezing more Zacchaeus is emphatic in Luke's interest in the poor. According to the narrative, after Zacchaeus, a wealthy man (Luke 19:2) has given half of his possessions to the poor; Jesus says, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham." It is only in Luke that the story of Zacchaeus is found immediately after the ruler's quest for salvation in 18:18-25. When Zacchaeus does what the ruler could not do, he receives salvation in that same day and earns himself reward in heaven (12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). In sum, Jesus' attitude towards the rich and their salvation is more pronounced in Luke, an uncompromising theme. The poor are the less privileged on earth but are more favored in the kingdom of heaven than the rich, except when they care for the poor while on earth.
2.1.2. Moses/the Law and the Prophets in Luke Usually, Luke 16:19-31 is divided into two parts (2). The second part (vv. 27-31) is considered redactional or post-resurrection composition of the early church. Verses 15-31 constitute a unit in which vv. 19-31 fall. The teachings of Moses (sometimes the law, 24:27; 44) and the prophets appear throughout the unit (vv. 16, 17, 18, 29, 31), signifying a thematic unity. The Seventh-day Adventist Commentary's observation is apt: "In vv. 17, 18 Jesus affirms that the principles set forth in 'the law' are immutable-God has not changed-and give an example of this sublime truth. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is then given to show that destiny is decided in this present life by the use of its privileges and opportunities" (SDABC,Vol. 5,830;Black,281). Craig Blomberg sees the division of the passage into two parts as artificial. He sees a clearer break after v. 23, where the dialogue begins, than between vv. 26 and 27 (Blomberg,204). He sees a verbal repetition of an address in vv. 24, 27 ("father," have mercy on me," "I beg you"). Like Craig Evans (Evans, 249), Blomberg identifies "the theme of 'too late'" (Blomberg,204) in the passage. "The rich man pays attention to Lazarus too late; he sees the unbridgeable chasm too late; he worries about his brothers too late; and he heeds the law and the prophets too late" (Blomberg, 204). The pericope is not about resurrection, as Cairus notes (Cairus,38). He is right when he says that the Pharisees "never questioned the concept of an afterlife as the Sadducees did" (Blomberg,204). Therefore, a theme of resurrection may not be in view. Rather, Moses and the prophets are enough for the rich to know and practice the way of the Lord with regards to caring for the poor. This suggests that the pericope is thematically intact and can be traced back to Jesus (Evans,Liefeld,991). That the passage's theme of wealth and poverty/reversal of fortunes cohere with Jesus' attitude toward the rich and concern for the poor in Luke may be underlined.
In sum, with both thematic and linguistic considerations, the story of the rich man and Lazarus can be traced back to Jesus. The unity of the pericope seems original and pre-resurrection. With this presentation, the study turns to the question of the genre and hermeneutical scheme of the story.

Genre and Hermeneutical Scheme of Luke 16:19-31
The main objective of this section is to understand the genre (literary type) of the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. This undertaking will, in turn, help determine an appropriate interpretive approach to understanding the passage in question.
If the story of the rich man and Lazarus is parable, why is it that the poor man is named, uncharacteristic of parables? Robert Stein notes that Jesus employs pun as he names the poor man Lazarus (Greek form of the Hebrew Eleazar, meaning "He whom God has helped"). This poor man can be identified with such poor people in 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 21:3 (Stein,423;Marshsall,635;Nolland,828;Geldenhugs,428;Blomberg,. Howard Marshall perceptively observes that the poor are generally pious and recipients of God grace in Luke (Marshsall,635). In a discourse framework, vv. 19-23 is narrative discourse while vv. 24-31 appears direct discourse. In the direct discourse, the rich needs Lazarus' help in cooling his tongue and/or warning his brothers to prevent them from coming to Hades. Although Lazarus is silent throughout the discourse, it appears the discourse revolves around him. It seems that the naming of the poor helps facilitate the dialogue between the rich man and Abraham. This may explain the unusual naming of a parabolic character (Blomberg,203;Marshall,635;Stein,423). Granted, how should this parable be understood? Parable may be defined as an extended simile or metaphor (Tolar 2002, 27;Hauck, Vol. 5, 745, 752). In recent studies, parables are taught to express a point (Matt 20:1-16; Luke 11:1-4) or points of symbolic representations (Mark 4:1-20: Warren 2002, 327). Several Bible interpreters have been reluctant to employ allegorical approach in interpreting parables. However, if the literary context of the text allows it, it should be given its due force (Sloan and Newman 2002, 63;Warren, 327). Craig Blomberg understands that Jesus' parables betray some allegorical elements (Blomberg,325). In short, the literary context of a parabolic text may determine their symbolic representations (Warren,326).
A number of scholars have watered down an allegorical approach to understanding the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Therefore, major points of the parable have been highlighted, ignoring some significant details (Plummer, 390-1; Geldenhugs,428;Wright,80;Black,282). In fact, a description of the unseen world has created some discomfort and necessitated suppression of the details in the parable (Blomberg,SDABC,Vol. 5,Geldenhugs,428;Wright,80;Black,282;Plummer,393). For example, Stephen Wright opines that "the aim of the story is not to give some sort of geographical information about the world afterlife" (Wright, 80). However, it seems fair to ask, if what goes on in the world matters, why should not that of afterlife matter? The cue to either look for major point(s) or press details has to be determined from the literary context.
In context, the covetous Pharisees are addressed by this parable (v. 14). They can be likened to the rich but foolish man . Even though this parable may provide some major points as mentioned above, certain symbolic representations with their corresponding realities may be prized in Lucan context. For example, the parable of the prodigal son is narrated to address the murmuring of the Pharisees and the Scribes that the tax-collectors and the sinners, who draw near to Jesus, are also God's children (1:1, 11-32). The central idea is that sinners are also God's children and if they so choose to repent and come to him, he is always willing to accept them back from their waywardness. Even though the central idea is obvious, there are some symbolic representations that give a complete thought of the story. For example, the ever-loving father, the first son, the younger son, far country, in context, may correspond to God, Pharisees and scribes, and the tax-collectors and sinners, waywardness respectively. Certain details such as his father's servants, swine, bread, robe, ring, shoes, fatted calf, field make the parable work without any corresponding realities (Stein,424). This approach may be a quasi-allegorical interpretation of the parable in context. The parable of the rich and Lazarus has been considered as an example story for the covetous Pharisees (16:14; Nolland, 827; SDABC, Vol. 5, 830). It presents two scenes. The first represents this life (16:19-22) while the second is the afterlife (23-31). Blomberg keenly observes that there is more to the example story in that Abraham is the spokesperson of God, and that the rich man and Lazarus are representatives of certain characters in real life (Blomberg,205). If the rich man and Lazarus represent certain characters in this life and Abraham as spokesperson of God in the afterlife, a quasi-allegorical approach can be employed to see the corresponding realities in and of the afterlife.

Contextual Analysis of (Quasi-allegorical Analysis) Luke 16:19-31
The contextual analysis of the passage concerns itself with the question of the afterlife of the rich and Lazarus and the intermediate state of their souls and consciousness. The analysis will be successful in consideration of the life setting of Jesus and the composition of the Gospel of Luke (Warren,319). This study begins with the assumption that a human being is a composite of body and spirit (soul), following the OT's definition of human (Cf. Matt 10:28; Richards 1991, 575).

Lazarus in Abraham's Bosom
A certain rich man lived sumptuously while a poor man was laid at his gate. The poor desired to be fed at the gate (v.19-21). The poor man, named Lazarus, died and was carried by the angels to the bosom of Abraham while the rich man died and was buried. The rich man was in Hades (hadēs), being in torment, while Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom (kolpos). With this afterlife scenario, Kendall believes "that hell is a place of conscious punishment, not annihilation" (Kendall,287). Morris Womack reminds us, "Jesus never misrepresents facts in his parables" (Womack,248). However, it is clear from the passage that Lazarus did not go to Hades (hadēs). Some details are left out of the story. Jesus does not say that Lazarus is buried as the rich man is. The high point stressed is that Lazarus is taken by angels to the bosom of Abraham. Does this suggest that the disembodied soul is taken by the angels or both the body and the soul? Similarly, is the soul of the rich tormented in Hades or both the body and soul?
The poor man's name, Lazarus, is the Greek for the Hebrew Eleazar ('el āzār) "he (whom) God has helped" (Brown, with Driver and Briggs, 1952, s.v. 'el āzār). In addition to what has already been said, the fact that the rich man is buried and the poor man receives angelic escort suggests the poor man as the recipient of God's grace (Marshall,636). To say the least, the poor in Luke have their reward in heaven. A Targum on Canticles 4:12 indicates that the souls of the righteous are brought to paradise by angels. This idea is not found in rabbinic sources. The Greek kolpos literally means "bosom," "breast," or "chest" (Bauer 1979, s.v. kolpos). It occurs six times in the NT and metaphorically depicts close intimacy (Luke 6:38; 16:22f; John 1:18; 13:23; Acts 27:39; Hock 1987, 448-55).
Outside scriptures, God says to his angels after the death of Abraham: "Lead my friend Abraham into Paradise where the tabernacles of my righteous are and the dwellings of my saints, Isaac, Jacob, and Abraham en tō kolpō autou" (Jeremiah, paradeisos, TDNT, Vol. 5, 769 n. 37; Test. Abr. 20 A). Marshall's comment is right that even though Abraham is thought to be in paradise, his bosom does not equate paradise (Marshall,637). Abraham is thought to receive the righteous martyrs (4 Macc. 13:17). That may be why a great rabbi can be said to be in Abraham's bosom, a euphemism for being dead (b. Qidd. 72a-b. b. Bera. 28b; Nolland, 829. Test. Abr. 13:1-16; 14:1-10). Generally, it can be stated that Abraham's bosom metaphorically meant the righteous' closeness to Abraham in Paradise after death (Apocalypse of Moses 40; b. Shab 152b). In this way, the righteous, together with Abraham and the patriarchs, are visualized in bodily terms.

The Rich in Hades (hadēs)
The rich man is being tormented in Hades (hadēs). The Greek hadēs originally signified the god of the netherworld. As a concept, it can be traced back to the second millennium BCE. The Mesopotamian and Egyptian mythological and mortuary texts indicate the belief in the consciousness of the soul in the afterlife (Wilson 1969, 32-34;Speiser 1969, 107;Bauckman 1998, 97). Of interest is an Egyptian tale about a soul that retuned from Amente (hadēs) to the earth. Si-Osiris, the reincarnated soul, recounts reversal of fortunes of the rich and the poor in Amente. In Amente, the rich suffer while the poor sit with the god of Amente (Bauckman, 98;Fitzmyer, 1127). The ritual of necromancy in the then world affirms this belief (Cf. 1 Sam. 28;Seneca Herc. Oct, 1863-1976Ovid Met. 14.829-51). In the Greek world, apart from hadēs being identified with the god of the netherworld, it is frequently used for the place of the dead (Homer The Odyssey 3.410; LCL, 1:99; 10.175; LCL, 1:357). Hadēs is a place where souls can engage in conversation (Homer The Odyssey, 11.50-90; LCL, 1:389-93), judged by the gods (Homer The Odyssey, 11.565-70; LCL, 1:427), and tormented (Homer The Odyssey). Plato highlights the dichotomy of body and soul of human being (Plato Georgias 3:419). Plato states that the soul is immortal and that it is preexistent and continues to exist after escaping from the body at death (Ferguson 2003, 334-5). Being in hadēs, the souls are free from the desires of the body (Plato Cratylus 4:47). The wicked receive several punishments in hadēs (The Laws 2.9.870, trans. Bury, LCL, 11:256-57). For Plato, souls with divine virtue are moved through a holy road to a better sphere (The Laws 2.10.904; LCL, 11:367).
In the LXX, out of 72 references, hadēs occurs 61 times as translation of the Hebrew sheol, "grave," "underworld," "abode of the dead," "degradation of sin," and "symbol of place of exile" (BDB, s.v. sheol). With reference to the dead, generally sheol is the realm of both the righteous and the unrighteous dead in the OT (e.g.,Gen. 37:35;Num. 16:30;BDB,s.v. sheol). sheol or hadēs appears to be the place of the dead not the soul (spirit). The OT is silent on the question of immortality of the soul (spirit) (Cf. Gen. 37:35). A picturesque scene of the afterlife is not attested to in the OT. The dead do not praise the Lord, rather it is the living that do (Ps. 6:5;115:17;. The dead do not see oppression as the living do, so the dead are happier than the living (Prov. 4:1). It may suffice to say that sheol or hadēs refer to the grave where all the dead are buried. It depicts a place of gloom and despair, forgetfulness and where the presence of YHWH is withdrawn. If the preacher's understanding is correct, then the spirit (soul) returns to the giver, God, while the dust returns to the earth (12:17). That is why the preacher urges the living to enjoy life to the full (2:24; 3:12f, 22; 5:180-20; 6:3-6; 8:15; 9:7-10; 11:9f; 12:1-8). This suggests that bodily emotions and activities may be restricted to body-soul equation on earth, not beneath the earth (Bar 1992, ch. 1). In short, sheol or hadēs in the OT is the place for both the righteous and unrighteous dead, and that death was not the escape route for the spirit (soul). In the Post-biblical Judaism, the place of hadēs in socio-religious setting is worth noting. To begin with, Sirach mimics the belief in the OT that both good and bad persons go to hadēs (14: 16-19; 17:25-32; 38:16-23; 41:4; 48:4-5; 51:5-6). However, Psalms of Solomon indicate that hadēs is the place for punishing the wicked (2:23-3:10; 5:15; 8:13,17; 15:2-3). Fourth Maccabees indicates immortality of the soul as a reward for righteousness, not as quality of nature (18:23; Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-2; Pesudo-Phocylides, 105-15; Sybylline Oracles 4.179-92). 2 Esdr 7:75-140 describes the intermediate torment of the ungodly souls and the blessings of the godly souls between death and the final Day of Judgment (Ethiopic Enoch 22:1-15.). However, in some rabbinic sources, the judgment is passed at death (Sifre on Num. 13:8; Mekilta on Exod. 15:1; b. Sanh. 91a). Philo also teaches that the soul is immortal imprisoned in the body, reflecting platonic worldview (e.g., Philo Questions on Gen. 3:1; Leg. 1.33;3.14. 42;Migr. 2.9;Spec. 1.295. 123;Opif. 1.145ff). The Pharisees, according to Josephus, both the souls of the righteous and the wicked receive their reward and punishment under the earth respectively (Jos. Ant. 18.14). Josephus shares this Platonism but rehearses the view that the souls of the faithful are in heaven while those of the wicked are held in the darkest place in Hades (hadēs; Jewish War 1. 650;2.163;Apion. 2.217;Ant. 18.14). The same can be said of the Qumran community (4Q521). Targum Jonathan on 1 Sam. 25:29 says that the souls of the righteous are in the treasury while those of the wicked are in Gehenna (geenna) or any unpleasant area (Targum Jonathan on Isa. 27:12f). In some Jewish tradition, Gehenna is the place of punishment with fire (b. Hagigah 15a; Pesahim 54a). The duration of the punishment can either be eternal, temporary, or complete extermination (Midrash Rabbah on Gen. 26 on 6:3; Tos. Sanh. 13.3ff;4 Esdr. 7:36). In the Post-biblical Judaism, it may be said that fluidity of the nature of the judgment of the wicked abounds.
Hadēs occurs ten times in the NT (Matt. 11:23;16:18;Luke 10:15;16:23;Acts 2:27,31;Rev. 1:18;6:8;20:13f). Following Jeremias (Jeremias 1964(Jeremias -1976, Norval Geldenhugs argues that there is no evidence in the NT that the faithful at their death go to the realm of the dead (hadēs; Geldenhugs,429;Morris,253). However, it appears that a closer look at the use of hadēs in Acts 2:27, 31 may, for example, indicate otherwise. In context, Peter appeals to Ps. 16:10 as Testimonia, testifying to the messiahship of Jesus (Ellis 2002, 74-75). Speaking of Jesus' resurrection, Peter sees a fulfilled prophecy in the Psalms (Acts 2:31) and probably uses the LXX version. The Psalmist's theme in ch. 16 is preservation of the Psalmist by YHWH. Peter quotes the poetic lines as they appear in the HB. In Acts 2:27 as in Ps. 16:10, the statement gives the reason why the Psalmist rejoices and his flesh shall dwell in hope (Acts 2:26; Cf. Ps 16:9). The first line of Acts 2:27 says that God will not abandon the soul (life) of the Psalmist in Hades (hadēs). The second indicates that God will not allow his holy one to see corruption. If Hades is the realm of the dead, then it is where the corruption of the flesh can take place. The structure of these poetic lines appears to be synonymous parallelism. This means that these lines "express the same idea with different but equal words" (Byargeon 2002, 281). Verse 31 confirms this understanding. The point here is that Jesus himself goes to the realm of the dead but is not left to corrupt. If the one that the faithful follow goes to the Hades, what prevents them to go there too at death (Aune 1998, Vol. 52B, 401-02;Stefanovic 2002, 97, 570)? To say the least, the righteous went to Hades in the NT.
One of the theological statements in the NT is the consummated eschatological judgment. Jesus declares that, at his coming with attendant glory, he will reward everyone according to their work (e.g., Matt. 16:27; 25:31-41; Cf. 5:12; 6:1-2; Luke 6:23). In Matt. 6:4, 6, 18, God repays good work. An account will be given on the Day of Judgment for every careless speech (12:36; 1 Pet. 4:5). The apostles believed and taught that the reward of the righteous is in heaven, and it will be given them during the day of judgment (Rom. 2:6;1 Thess. 4:16,17;2 Tim. 4:1,8,14;Rev. 11:18;22:12). In the clearest terms, Paul says that this mortal body will put on immortality during resurrection (1 Cor. 15:51-5). The statement in 2 Tim. 4:8 is apt: "Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give to me at that day; and not to me only, but also to all them that have loved his appearing" (ASV). The eschatological tone of these references suggests that the reward given to both the righteous and unrighteous will be on the Day of Judgment. It can further be pressed that they become conscious when receiving this reward at the resurrection period, not in the underworld.

Wealth and Poverty in the Life Setting of Jesus
The story of the rich and Lazarus is told as a parable so it must be understood as such. Wealth in Luke is considered evil if it is not used to care for the poor. Taking care of the poor secures one a place in heaven (18:18). In the Law and the Prophets, the rich has responsibility for the poor (Exod. 22:25;23:11;Lev. 19:10;23:22;25:29;Deut. 15:7,9;Esth. 9:22;10:2;41:17;58:7). Wealth is considered as God's blessing and is not viewed as evil (10:22). Abraham, Job, and Solomon are rich and pious. Piety-prosperity equation is ascribed to these people (Davids,703). This means that wealth in and of itself is not evil. In Jewish tradition, Abraham and Job are wealthy and pious at the same time because of their generosity (The Books of Jub.; Test of Job). In some rabbinic sources, the plight and gravity of the situation of the poor is heightened (Lev. Rab. 34:6 on Lev. 25:25;b. B. Bat. 116a;b. Sanh. 151b.). Exodus Rab 31:12 on Exod. 22:24 states, "There is nothing in the world more pious than poverty-the most terrible of all sufferings. Our teacher said: All sufferings are on one side and poverty is on the other side." P. H. Davids notes that poverty was a real problem in the first century (Davids,703). The only righteous deed that outranked charity is meditation on the Torah (B. B. Bat. 9a, b; Exod. Rab. 31:1). In fact, it is said, "the poor do more for the wealthy than do the wealthy for the poor" (B. Šabb. 151b). The theme of caring for the poor in the Law and the Prophets is highlighted in later Judaism. In the life setting of Jesus, poverty is a grave concern and needed to be addressed theologically. Thus, turning a blind eye to the needs of the poor severs oneself from eternal salvation.

Synthesis of the Analysis
The contextual analysis of the passage has revealed several points in understanding the parable. Poverty is a conscious and real issue in the first century. As part of his mission, Jesus seeks to preach good tidings to the poor (Luke 4:18; 7:22). In Luke, he urges the rich to honor their responsibility for the poor so as to secure them eternal life (18:22), a view supported in Judaism. This responsibility is clearly spelt out in the Law and the Prophets. Ch. 16:14 indicates that the Pharisees are covetous. Being covetous suggests that they have not been honoring their responsibility for the poor as the rich man did in real life. On the other hand, Lazarus would represent the real poor in the life setting of Jesus, whose needs have not been attended to (Hultgren,115).
Poverty and piety are equated in Luke. Lazarus goes to the bosom of Abraham at death. In Judaism, to be in Abraham's bosom is to have close intimacy with Abraham in Paradise. In the NT in particular, this closeness happens only at the eschatological banquet. In other words, believers' face-to-face encounter with Abraham takes place at the eschaton not immediately after death. The corresponding reality of Abraham's bosom in Luke appears to be the eschatological period when the righteous will be rewarded. Reward for the righteous at the eschaton is a Lucan as well as NT theme. If human being consists of the body-soul equation, then Lazarus' body and soul should have suffered equally while alive. If this consideration is correct, then the body-soul