The Evangelical Universalist Forum

The thirsty rich man

Evangelical Universalism
#1

Interesting to compare

“The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let the one who hears say, “Come!” Let the one who is thirsty come; and let the one who wishes take the free gift of the water of life.”

with

"In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’"

Abraham made the first covenant with God: Obey, and be blessed. Disobey, and be cursed. There was no water, no relief, no hope for the evil-doer, and the gulf between heaven and hell was fixed.

Compare this with the second covenant. “Let the one who is thirsty come.”

Abraham tells the rich man that no one can cross from hell to heaven, or from heaven to hell. He was mistaken. In his death and resurrection, Jesus did both.

#2

Although I generally agree, Abraham’s covenant with God didn’t involve Abraham actually making the covenant – God was the only one who went through the split sacrifices, so neither Abraham nor his descendents could void the covenant by misbehaving. The Mosaic covenant could be breached, because the people took it with God and bound their descendents to it (which they then almost entirely broke, Moses included); but St. Paul (and the Hebraist if they aren’t the same person) stresses hard that the Abrahamic covenant remains intact and cannot be broken on pain of God’s death. In fact, if Abraham or his descendents break the covenant, God still has to die! – which is what happens. :slight_smile: But since God Himself was innocent of the breach, the death wasn’t permanent. This is probably what accounts for the language seeming to point toward penal substitution in the scriptures: in order to keep His side of the covenant God must bear the burden of the sin of Abraham and Abraham’s children, which includes all the children Abraham will ever have either naturally or spiritually, as many as the stars in the sky or the grains of sand on the shore.

(There are several other interrelated issues going on there, too, such as the Father making the covenant not with Abraham at all but with Abraham’s seed meaning Christ. But since all rational beings descend from Christ the action of God, Christ pays for the sin of all rational beings in order to keep the covenant made with the Father. But then if God doesn’t bring all the children of God to salvation, God breaks the covenant made with God!)

#3

At some risk of being thought irreverent I have to point out that Jesus told this parable to a Jewish audience, and a shared assumption between them was that heaven and hell weren’t like that.

That’s what gives Jesus’s words such impact.

It’s a Jewish joke, and a very funny one.

#4

So… God had to die because he broke the covenant with Abraham?

#5

A bit like, “Three Irishman find themselves at the Pearly Gates. St Peter says, etc”

If so, I reckon the punchline got lost somewhere in translation.

#6

No, God died because Abraham’s descendants broke the covenant. By keeping Abraham out of the volitional part of the agreement, God pledged responsibility for Abraham’s side of the covenant, too. As long as God keeps up Abraham’s side of the covenant, which God would have to do or else be irresponsible to the covenant (thus breaking it Himself), Abraham’s descendants cannot void the covenant by breaking it. But once the two natures of Christ (descended from Abraham by the flesh) are factored in, all rational creatures count as the descendants of Abraham for purposes of the covenant (including all rational creatures created before Abraham, and including Abraham himself. If the rabbis had ever figured that out, they would have had a mystical heyday with that. :sunglasses: )

Which is also related to the concept that God, being responsible for the creation of inconveniently neutral Nature (which was nevertheless necessary for creatures to interact with one another) and for the creation of rational contributors to natural history (who might abuse their gifts), voluntarily demonstrates He takes authoritative responsibility for the evil and the unwanted suffering in the world. Precisely because He is sinless Himself – it would be a sin for Him not to take responsibility for the situations He has set up and allowed and in some cases even fostered for sake of various goals.