Another intriguing article from our guest blogger:
AUTHOR MARK IRELAND
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
A well-meaning person recently pointed me to a scriptural reference which-according to their interpretation-implied that mediums cannot communicate with the deceased. The passages in question are found in the Gospel of Luke-considered one of the “synoptic” gospels along with Mark and Matthew. The person mentioned a “chasm,” referenced in the story, which would purportedly prevent such communications.
Modern biblical scholars have concluded that stories about Jesus, including his sayings, survived through an oral tradition for a period of twenty to thirty years after the crucifixion-prior to the arrival of any written accounts. They consider Mark the oldest of the four canonical gospels, dating it to 70-80 CE-about fifty years after the crucifixion, with Matthew and Luke following ten to fifteen years later-around 85-90 CE. As you see, this leaves a gap of roughly twenty to thirty years between the end of the oral tradition and the arrival of Mark.
Researchers eventually deduced the existence of a since lost sayings gospel referred to as “Q,” for “Quelle,” a German word meaning “source.” They also concluded that Matthew and Luke drew from “Q,” as well as Mark, implying that the earlier gospels provided a foundation for the latter ones. Obviously, “Q” is thought to pre-date Mark, likely originating between 55-60 CE.
This theory explains why many stories that appear in Mark are also found in Luke and Matthew-and stories not found in Mark, but resident in both Matthew and Luke, are assumed to come from Q. The particular story referenced by the concerned individual has no parallel, however-appearing only in Luke.
[Of the four canonical gospels, it is thought that John was written last-probably around 95-100 CE. For the purposes of this discussion, however, John does not come into play. A fifth (non-canonical) gospel named "Thomas" also exists. Some scholars believe that the Gospel of Thomas may pre-date all the other (canonical) gospels. Some also contend that early versions of Thomas may have served as source material for the other gospels-much like "Q."]
The passages noted by the aforesaid individual come from Luke 16.19-31. This is a story attributed to Jesus regarding a rich man who, “was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.” The rich man’s existence is contrasted with that of Lazarus, a poor man “covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table.”
The moral of the story comes into play when both men die and the rich man suffers in Hades, while the poor man is “carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.” It is then noted that the rich man “looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side” and so he asked Abraham for cool water to quench his thirst.
Abraham responded, essentially telling the rich man that he and Lazarus were reaping the just rewards of their earthly lives. He then followed saying, “Besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.”
After realizing that he was destined to remain in Hades, the rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers, hoping they might avoid a similar fate.
Abraham then retorted, “They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.”
Undeterred, the rich man beseeched, “If someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.”
Abraham then steadfastly proclaims, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
So, what does this story have to say about the feasibility of mediumship? First, even if one chooses to read the passages literally, there is nothing to suggest that communication between the living and deceased is impossible. While the tale implies that the rich man is restricted from moving from Hades to the “bosom of Abraham,” he clearly communicates across the divide-seeing, hearing, and speaking with Abraham. So, while it is said that the chasm prevented the rich man from relocating from Hades to Abraham’s domain, it had no bearing on their cross-dimensional dialog.
Also, a traditional / literalist view would hold that Hades (or Hell) is two levels removed from Heaven, while the Earth is one level removed. Using this argument, one could say that an earthly medium should have an easier time communicating with deceased individuals than did the rich man in Hades-who stretched his transmission across two levels.
At the end of the story, Abraham denies the rich man’s request that Lazarus be sent to warn his surviving brothers, so they might avoid a similar fate. Despite his rebuff, Abraham says nothing to indicate that the appeal is impossible. Rather, it seems a matter of principle-that they should live rightly without prodding-along with Abraham’s apparent opinion that such an effort would be a waste of time, because the brothers would not listen anyhow.
Ultimately, I would suggest that it is best to step away from such literal interpretations. This story fit with Jesus’ practice of using metaphor to illustrate his point-rather than literalism. Also, reading this story literally leads to misunderstanding by placing emphasis on the wrong elements. The “moral” of the story seems to be to live life in a caring and giving manner, as opposed to a self-serving one. The other background elements of the story seem intended to dramatize the urgency of living in a just way.
Finally, one must consider the process by which the surviving gospels came to be-a topic I addressed earlier. They are essentially second generation documents which leaned on earlier accounts that are no longer accessible. Also, those first generation scriptures were preceded by a twenty to thirty year oral tradition-and we all know how the “telephone game” works. So, we are left with questions that may never be answered. How can we know if certain passages were popularized stories that evolved within specific communities-taking on a life of their own-or if they were Jesus’ actual words?
Scholars believe that the four gospels of canon developed within disparate groups and that some of the differences between the texts may reflect the differing viewpoints of these various Christian communities. Even back then, it seems, Christianity was not unified.
One way of examining scripture in such cases is to look at the differences (or similarities) in stories appearing in multiple gospels.
For example, in Mark 9:40, Jesus says, “Whoever is not against us is for us.”
Similarly, in Luke 9:49 Jesus reports, “…whoever is not against you is for you.”
Turning the story 180 degrees, Matthew 12:30 has Jesus saying, “Whoever is not with me is against me.”
Given that Mark was the source for this story, the logical conclusion seems to be that the account portrayed in Mark and Luke is probably closer to the original story than the version found in Matthew. This is not “proof,” but it is one way to look at the issue.
In the case of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, this method of comparison cannot be used because there is only one account-in Luke-and it does not tie to Q or Mark.
Switching to another biblical reference on mediumship, the Old Testament provides a passage where a medium successfully communicates with a deceased individual. In 1 Samuel 28.4, the Medium of En’dor brings through the spirit of Samuel in order to deliver a message to his successor, Saul, at his (Saul’s) request.
How could this have happened if the previously mentioned chasm had been a limiting factor-preventing the medium from delivering Samuel’s message to Saul?
Once again, I would submit that biblical inconsistencies of this type reinforce the need to read scripture figuratively rather than literally.
_____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____ _____
CLICK HERE for more information about Soul Shift: Finding Where the Dead Go.
CLICK HERE to visit Mark Ireland’s web site.
September 19, 2008 at 8:21 pm |
Good article. Iwould like to mention that in this case of Lazarus, as in the other case of Samuel, both cases are in the same context of a same dispensation. After the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ, there is another dispensation, this be the dispensation of Grace. I don’t think we have to communicate with the dead, because Jesus died and is our advocate before God for us.
Note that the Scriptures does not approve the communication with the dead. By the way, have you heard of the striking paralelism between the 9/11 terrorists acts and the 9-11 verses in the Bible? http://www.911andthebible.com
November 1, 2008 at 12:35 am |
Not to ruffle feathers, but this answer, “scripture does not approve the communication with the dead” comes across as sort of pat response—a traditional call to accept an orthodox position without question.
I understand that people don’t “have to talk to the dead,” but some of them want to do so, because they’ve lost parents, spouses, and children, and they are hurting deeply. I lost my youngest son over four years ago and I cannot adequately describe my pain to you.
Most of the precautions against mediumship are found in the Old Testament texts, which also suggest that slavery is an acceptable practice. Is it possible that at least some portion of these texts reveal more about a specific set of ancient human norms and cultural mores, rather than a series of divine insights?”
The late Rev. Chancellor Garth Moore also provides useful insight on this subject, “One need go back to the [original] Hebrew [language] in order to understand what these passages mean, for the English translation is misleading. The prohibition in Exodus 18 and the condemnation in other passages are aimed at some practices, which were fraudulent, and others, which were sordid, and at any, which were idolatrous. For example, the word, which has been translated into English as ‘familiar spirit,’ is the Hebrew word, OB or OBH or OUV. This literally means an empty wine-skin or wind-bag, and became associated with the fraudulent practices of those who at a séance surreptitiously produced squeaks from it and indulged in ventriloquism for the deception of the sitter who had visited the ‘medium’ to obtain information from the dead. The type of necromancy at which the prohibition was aimed was not simple communication with the dead, but one which involved highly objectionable practices with corpses.”
So, perhaps the biggest concern over mediumship was the same in biblical times as it is today—the possibility of fraud—not the violation of God’s will.
The story of “The Transfiguration,” found in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, as well as 2nd Peter, reports on the ultimate form of mediumship. In plain view of the disciples, the spirits of Moses and Elijah are reported to have materialized and met with Jesus, who was glowing in white light. Interestingly, this description aligns with reports of spirit materializations, described by observers of such phenomena, facilitated through rare, uniquely gifted mediums.
Before you say, “Yeah, but that was Jesus,” remember the quote attributed to Christ, “Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works I do; and greater works than these he will do.” (John 14:12).