THE NATURE OF DEATH AND PUNISHMENT
SECTION I.
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS (Luke 16:19-31)
Does the human spirit have
conscious existence in physical death?
INTRODUCTION:
The nature of death has
always been a focal point of man’s interest and concern whether Christian,
atheist or infidel. The great skeptic,
Robert Ingersoll, standing by the grave of his brother, cried out:
“Life is a narrow vale between two cold and barren peaks of two
eternities. We strive in vain to look
beyond the heights, we cry aloud and the only answer is the echo of our wailing
cry. From the voiceless lips of the
unreplying dead there comes no word; but in the night of death, hope
sees a star, and listening love can hear the rustle of a wing.”
Likewise, among those
professing to follow the Bible there have been sharp disagreements. The orthodox view, held from Old Testament
times is that the soul continues when the body dies and that after death there
is a state of happiness for the righteous and torment for the wicked. This will be followed by a resurrection of
the physical body at which the righteous will be awarded eternal joy and wicked
eternal torment.
Opposed to this stands
primarily churches related to the Advent movement of 1844 (Seventh Day
Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, World Wide Church of God, etc.). They believe that at death the soul either
entirely ceases to exist or at least has is no conscious function. There is no place where the souls of the
dead are in either pleasure or pain until the resurrection. The second death is total extinction of soul
and body, generally with no future torment.
Some even deny that the wicked will be raised. Others believe that Hell is a period of punishment after which
the person is restored to God.
The historic description preferred
by them for this doctrine is “conditionalism.” This denotes that they believe in conditional immortality of the
soul, which they believe is the focal point of the issue. They contend that “immortality of the soul”
was borrowed from Greek mythology. Some
even claim the early “Fathers” were conditionalists.[1]
To show the error of this
teaching, I have chosen to begin with an examination of the story of the Rich
Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:1-8).
1.
Introductory Setting
In Luke 16:1-8, Jesus
addressed his disciples with the story of the Unrighteous Steward, who was wise
in his use of that with which he was entrusted. He then explained the lesson,
teaching that we should use the wealth of this world to benefit others so that
when it is gone we will be received into the “eternal tabernacles”. He warned that if we expect the “true
riches,” we can not serve both God and money. (16:8-13)
The Pharisees, who were “lovers of money,” obviously felt
the point of his words, and scoffed.
Jesus then addressed them plainly concerning their self-justification,
hypocrisy and failure to keep the Law. (14-18)
2.
The Account
He followed this with the
story of two men, one, a rich man, was intended to parallel their
situation. He lived sumptuously every
day and failed to listen to Moses and the prophets. The other was a beggar named Lazarus,
who sat at the gate, hungry and receiving medical attention only from the
dogs. In death their roles were reversed, with Lazarus carried by the angels
to the bosom of Abraham and the rich man in torment. Thus justice would be accomplished.
The rich man saw Abraham
afar off and called for Lazarus to be sent to ease his pain. Abraham reminded him that in
his lifetime, he had his good things and Lazarus, evil. Now, Lazarus was “comforted” and the rich
man was in “anguish”. Besides
this, he is informed there is a great gulf between which cannot be crossed.
The rich man then pleads
that Lazarus be sent to warn his five brethren who are still alive, that they
might not come to this “place of
torment.” Abraham tells
him they have Moses and the prophets to whom they can listen. The rich man knows they will not and argues
that they would listen if someone went to them “from the dead.”
Abraham responds that if they will not hear Moses and the Prophets they
would not listen to one who returned from the dead.
Thus we have it, simple and crystal clear--so
much so that neither Jesus (cf. Mtt. 13:18-23; 36-43) nor Luke offered any
further explanation, as would have been if what was said was in any way unclear
(Jn. 2:21; 7:39). The obvious lesson is that after death their position of
pride over others and disobedience to the Law would be reversed. No mater what a man’s rank, wealth or family
relationships, he will not escape the consequences of his conduct. There, the righteous will be comforted and
the wicked will suffer. For those who
suffer now, there will be a better life with justice.
Many have attempted to
dispute this but there is one overwhelming difficulty. It is
totally illogical that Jesus, who always used factual illustrations, would,
with no clarification, teach a pagan superstition that would mislead the
overwhelming mass of honest readers!
There is absolutely no
reason or logic for it to be included other than that it is factually
correct. If it is not, it is misleading
in the extreme. Everything in the passage can be verified as factually correct
from other scriptures and there is nothing in it that can be shown to be
untrue.
I.
CLAIMS
THAT IT IS “JUST A PARABLE,” DO NOT DISPROVE SUFFERING OF THE WICKED IN DEATH.
The nearest locations of the
word, “parable” are in 15:3, where it refers to the lost sheep and, in 18:1,
concerning the widow and the judge.
OBJECTION: “Jesus always spoke in parables (Mk.4:34;
Mt.13:34).”
ANSWER: Not everything he
said to them was a parable (see 16:9-18).
Whether it is or not, the fact is that it is not called a parable.
In any case, the story
appropriately applied to the Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking. Luke says they, were “lovers of money” (16:14-17), and the story shows that after death
their money would not help them.
1.
The
Greek word, “parabolee,” is a
combination of two words—“para,”
meaning “beside,” and “balloo,” to “place” or “cast.” Thus, it refers to a story laid beside a
lesson in order to illustrate it. An
actual event so used would still be a parable.
2.
True
historical events were sometimes called parables. In Heb.9:7-9; 11:19, the services in the tabernacle and the
actions of Abraham in preparing to sacrifice Isaac are called a “figure” (parabalee). Those parables were actual historical events.
3.
The
Septuagint also uses this word to describe actual events. Blessings pronounced upon Israel by Balaam
were called, “parable” (Num.23:7, 18;
24:3, 15, 20, 21, 23). Balaam spoke of
actual events, things that had taken place and things coming to pass.
OBJECTION: Jotham’s story of the bramble that made
itself king, is in the Septuagint called a “parable.”
ANSWER: Fables and figures
of speech were occasionally used as parables, but when this was done
clarification was made in the context to show they were not literal. That is
not the case in Luke 16. Furthermore,
Jesus never used myths or fables in his parables.
OBJECTION: The very use of the word, “Hades” is taken from Greek mythology.
ANSWER: The nature of language is that the words in
that language, nearest to the idea, are used to convey the ideas. “Hades”
(Strongs #86) was the place where the dead went after the body died. They commonly used this word in non-parable
situations (Acts 2:27, 31; Mat. 11:23).
The word is similarly used here.
It would have been utterly misleading to use the word “Hades” to convey the idea of ceasing to
exist –especially when it describes in detail a dead man in torment, concerned
about his brothers who were still living.
4.
An
examination of the parables of Jesus shows that it was not his practice to use
fables, much less, pagan superstition.
Not one of Jesus’ parables can be shown to have been unhistorical or
non-factual. Indeed, every one of them
could have been actual events.
OBJECTION: Jesus used
figures of speech that were not real.
He spoke of water of life, bread of life, that he was a door, of eating
his blood, and water flowing out of people.
ANSWER:
Those were not called
parables. They were common figures of
speech.
The lesson is spiritual. However, the illustrations were based on fact. They were taken from real things (door,
blood, water).
Water was real.
Bread was real.
The manna was real.
Shepherds often lay across the sheepfold entrance as
the door to the sheep.
Eating blood was possible.
According to conditionalists
the rich man and Lazarus could not have taken place at all.
OBJECTION: In Revelations, John speaks of a
seven-headed dragon and a scarlet colored beast carrying a woman.
ANSWER:
Unlike the parables of
Jesus, Revelation is in apocalyptic imagery.
Revelation 17 makes this absolutely clear. Luke 16 does not say, “Lazarus means this” and “the rich man
means that.” John was not speaking in
parables.
5.
Abraham,
a real historical character, is named along with Lazarus. This tends to support the historical nature
of the account.
To this, it is objected that
Rabbinical literature has similar mythical accounts of Abraham and others speaking.
ANSWER:
Those accounts were intended as factual events, but were false. Upon what basis may we equate the teachings
of Jesus with those? Paul, in Tit. 1:14
warns against “giving heed to Jewish
fables.”
Jesus would not have cited
some Jewish fable in a way that would mislead the church throughout
history. Had the account been a fable,
either Jesus or Luke would have so indicated.
C.
WHETHER
OR NOT IT WAS AN ACTUAL HISTORICAL EVENT, THE PARTICULARS OF THE STORY ARE
CONSISTENT WITH FACT.
1.
The
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (p.1143) says, “In the more usual technical sense of the word, ‘parable’ ordinarily
signifies an imaginary story, yet one that in its details could have actually
transpired.... It differs again from
the fable, in so far as the latter is a story that could not actually have
occurred.”
E. W. Fudge, in his book,
THE FIRE THAT CONSUMES, tries to pass this off as “folklore” (p.204). However, if it were only a fable or myth, it
would be better described by the Greek word, “muthos” (2Pe. 1:16; 2Tim. 4:4).
2.
All
of Jesus’ parables were factually based.
There is no sound reason for supposing this is an exception.
a.
Shoots
on fig trees are real. (Lk.21:29-31)
b.
New
un-shrunken cloth was not used in an old garment. (Lk.5:36)
c.
Fig
trees are sometimes barren. (Lk.13:6-9.
Cf. Mk. 11:13)
d.
Sheep
get lost. (Lk.15:3-7, cf. Mt.18:12-14)
e.
Farmers
sowed seed. (Mt.13:3, 18; Mk.2:10, 13; Lk.8:4, 9, 11)
3.
The
obvious nature of the lesson favors it being factual. The Pharisees were “lovers
of money,” (Luke 16:14). They were
hypocritical and they did not obey Moses and the prophets (16:14-18). In death their money would not provide the “true riches” (Luke 16:11). They would suffer without escape and could
not even come back from the dead to warn their families.
4.
It
is nonsense that Jesus would have cited some pagan fable and neither He nor
Luke would have made any attempt to indicate it’s true source, it’s nature, or
even it’s point. God gave us the
scriptures to thoroughly furnish us unto every good work. He meant for them to be understood.
History clearly demonstrates
that readers who have not otherwise been primed against it normally view it as
teaching that after death both the righteous and the wicked exist and
experience pleasure, or suffering, based on their behavior in life. God would never have used misleading
statements.
OBJECTION: Parables were not
intended to be understood. Jesus spoke in parables so the Pharisees might not
understand (Matt. 13:10-13).
ANSWER: It was intended for
his followers to understand (Matt.13:11).
When they did not, he explained them (Matt.13:18, 37). Since he did not interpret the rich man and
Lazarus it is obvious that Jesus considered it so clear that it needed no
further explanation.
The claim that Jesus never
spoke plainly and none of His parables could be understood by His enemies, is
not correct (Matt.21:45).
5.
The
detail as to the conscious nature of death and the reality of subsequent reward
and suffering is so emphatic that those who deny it in effect thereby make God
to blame for perpetrating a monstrous deception. Indeed, the very fact that
annihilationists would not present such a picture of death, and when faced
with the passage, they must go to great lengths to explain it away, strongly
indicates that they themselves sense that it manifests a compelling indication
of a conscious state after the body dies.
God certainly could have
used other language if he meant something else. In fact, if there is no punishment in death then the lesson of
the passage is confused. If there is no
consciousness of the soul, it would have been more understandable to speak of
the consequences of sin after the resurrection.
If God did not clearly say
what He meant then who can say it better? Who dares claim they know better what
God meant? If death is annihilation,
why would God use such a misleading description?
6.
No stronger or plainer
language could be used to describe a state of suffering for the wicked in
death. Certainly, those who will not believe this
would not believe if someone returned from the dead!
7.
As
we follow with an examination of the text, we will see that nothing in the
story can be shown to violate fact.
Indeed, it is further supported by other scriptures that demonstrate
it’s factual nature.
Figurative language must
remain consistent in concept with the things portrayed and words must follow
the rules of grammar and word usage. If death meant “annihilate” or “cease to
exist,” it is inconceivable that it would say, “and the rich man ceased to exist and lifted up his eyes, being in
torments.” With such irreconcilable concepts words
become nonsense and communication becomes meaningless. Grimm’s Fairy Tales would make more sense!
Indeed, because of the
limitations upon human experience, such descriptions of things beyond life
portray things greater than
themselves. For example, the
tabernacle, which is called a “figure” (Heb.9:9. #3850 parabolee), was real and
conveyed a limited picture of a greater and more perfect tabernacle (Heb.8:1-5;
9:11). Even in apocalyptic language,
“streets of gold” and “gates of pearl” (Rev. 20) likely portrays a greater
magnificence than the physical description.
In their struggle to break
the strength of this, some have tried to minimize the rich man’s guilt. They argue that wealth alone could not
deserve such misery, and being poor could not be a basis for reward.
Of course not. He was speaking to the Pharisees who are
specified as being “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14), who justified themselves in the
sight of men but had wicked hearts (16:15), and did not listen to Moses and the
prophets (16:16-17, 29, 31).
Also, It was a sin to turn
away from helping the poor. Prov. 21:13
says, “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry
of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.” Unlike Abraham, this rich man was not
righteous.
Likewise, since going into
the nature of the poor man’s salvation would have been an unnecessary diversion
from the purpose of the story, it is not considered. He was not saved because he was poor. Such objections are shallow and diversionary. They only confirm the bias behind them and
are serve to confirm the bankruptcy of their case.
The lesson may be either of
the following types or a mix of both:
1.
A
parable may be an actual example as presented in the story.
a.
Luke
18:9-14. The Pharisee and the Publican.
Justification was real.
b.
Luke
12:16-21. The rich fool.
He trusted his wealth but died without God, leaving
all.
Wealth and death were real
c.
Mt.
15:15; Mk.7:17. Things that proceed
from the man defile him.
The “evil thoughts”
etc. were literal.
d.
Luke
4:23. “Physician, Heal thyself.”
“What you have
done in Capernaum, do also in your own country.”
(The healing was real in both cases)
2.
A
parable may be different in fact but similar in nature.
If Luke 16 is viewed this way,
the description of “eyes,” “tongue” and “flame” conveys corresponding concepts to those in the story. To do this, they must convey a similar
concept. It cannot say, “I am in torment” and mean “I do not exist”!
a.
Mat.
13:24, 36. The “seeds” sown represent the teachings of God versus those of the
devil.
b.
Mat.
13:3, 18; Mk 2:10, 13; Lk. 8:4, 9, 11.
The different kinds of soil in which seed falls represents different
kinds of hearts upon which the word comes.
c.
Luke
14:7-11. Sit in lower place rather than the higher.
Everyone that exalts himself shall be humbled...
The humbling of which he warns is before God.
d.
Mt.18:34,
35. The man who failed to have compassion was delivered to the tormentors.
Jesus says, “so shall your heavenly Father do to you if you do not forgive
every man his brother from the heart.”
The story was on earth but the lesson was for heaven.
e.
Luke
18:1-8. The widow who cried for justice
illustrated the need to be faithful in prayer.
f.
Luke
19:11-27. The parable of the pounds teaches faithfulness in waiting for the
appearance of the kingdom.
g.
Mt.
21:28-32 (cf.v.33). The two sons
represent the different reactions of the religious leaders and the
sinners. One group professed to go but
did not, while the others at first declined but afterwards went.
h.
Lk.
6:39. Blind leading the blind compares spiritual to literal blindness. (cf. Mt.15:14)
Thus, no matter whether the
rich man and Lazarus is historical or symbolic, or the fire literal or
figurative, it clearly indicates in death a terrible suffering for the
wicked. To deny the obvious is to turn
the Bible into a meaningless jumble of nonsense.
II.
AN
EXAMINATION OF THE STORY FEATURES SHOW THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH IT’S
FACTUAL NATURE.
16:19. “There WAS...”
(Greek: “een” #5100)
Jesus said there “was.”
Who dares say there was not?
This word is used in many cases where there was. Indeed, every parable in which it is used
may indicate that there really was such a case. Certainly the phrase is often
used of real people, exactly as used here.
-Luke 4:33. “There was a man which had a spirit of an
unclean demon”
-Luke 13:11. “There was a woman
which had a spirit”
-Matt. 12:10; Mark 3:1; Luke 6:6. “There was a man which had a withered hand.”
-John
11:1. “Now a certain man was
sick named Lazarus”
16:19. “…a CERTAIN...” (Greek: “tis”)
-Luke 14:2. “There was a certain man which had dropsy.”
-Luke 22:56. “a certain maid beheld Peter”
-John 4:46. “there was a certain nobleman”
-John
11:1. “Now a certain
man was sick named Lazarus”
-John 12:20. “There were certain Greeks.”
16:19. “...rich man...”
All of the features of this man’s wealth are easily
substantiated as factual.)
-Mark 10:21-25. The rich young ruler went away sorrowful. Jesus remarked about how difficult it is for a rich man to enter
the kingdom.
-2John 3:17. Those who have this world’s
goods and shut up compassion [like the rich man in Luke 16] cannot have love
for God.
-Mat. 25:37-46. Those who failed to care for the needy were sent away into
everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
16:20. “...and there was a certain beggar...”
Here again, everything said about this person
(sores, hunger and dogs) can be shown as compatible with experiences of real
people.
-John 9:7-8. A blind man sat and begged at the pool of Siloam.
-Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35. Blind
Bartimaeus sat begging near Jericho.
-Acts 3:2. A lame man begged at
the Beautiful gate of the temple.
16:20. “...named Lazarus...”
Here we have something
significantly different. It does not
cite an anonymous individual representing a class but a specifically named
person. Almost this identical phrase is
used in reference to Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha. The fact that Abraham, who is a real person
himself, is also named, further supports the case for it being a historical
fact.
-John 11:1-2. “A certain man was sick, named Lazarus”
-Acts
9:10. “There was a
certain disciple named Ananias”
-Acts 9:33. “A certain man named Aeneas ...was sick of the palsy.”
-Acts
9:36. “There was a
certain disciple named Tabitha.”
-Acts 10:1. “A certain disciple was
there named Timotheus”
-Acts 16:1. “A certain man named Justus”
-Luke 2:25. “There was a man in Jerusalem,
whose name was Simeon.”
-John 3:1. “There was a man of the
Pharisees, named Nicodemus.”
OBJECTION: Why was the rich man not named?
ANSWER:
1. Other real people so referred to are also left anonymous.
Luke
10:25. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up,
Luke
11:27. a certain woman of the company lifted up
her voice
Luke
14:2. there was a certain man before him which had the
dropsy.
Luke
18:18. a certain
ruler asked him
Luke
18: 35. a certain
blind man sat by the way side begging
Luke
21:2. he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither
two mites.
Luke
22: 56. But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by
the fire,
John
4: 46 there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at
Capernaum.
John
5:5. a certain man was there, which had an infirmity
thirty and eight years.
2. The Lord may have
avoided having the point of the parable lost in hostile response to charges of
“personal aspersion on the dead,” or to avoid unnecessarily bringing pain to
survivors.
16:22. “...died...” Strong: “#599 ‘Apothneeskoo’
from #575 [‘away’ or ‘off’] and #2348 [‘thanoo’--’die’, ‘death’]”
-Luke 16:22-24. The Rich man, Lazarus, and Abraham (cf. Lk. 20:37-38) are all said to
be “dead,” yet clearly continue to exist.
I have never known anyone
who, without being taught otherwise, did not see this as indicating what took
place after death. God could not have
said it plainer. To deny that this is
their true state is to make God to be grossly misleading. How else could he possibly have said it more
clearly to indicate continued pleasure and pain? Who dares to presume that they can say what God meant better than
God?
If death is annihilation, it
is totally incredible that Jesus, even in a parable, would say “the rich man died...and in Hades he lifted
up his eyes being in torment.”
Certainly, none of those who call themselves “conditionalists” would
ever use such a story without clearly indicating it did not really happen. The annihilationist concept of death is so
radically contrary to the idea of torment that if they were correct it would be
absurd even to use such imagery in relation to it.
16:22. “...and was carried by the angels...”
-Heb. 1:13-14. Angels are ministering spirits.
-Jude 9. When Moses died, the
archangel, Michael, disputed with the devil over his body (cf. Deut. 34:5-6;
Jude 1:9).
-2 Corinthians 12:2. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years
ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot
tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught
up to the third heaven. 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is
not lawful for a man to utter.
16:22. “...into Abrahm’s bosom”
Abraham was a real person
and who died. In Jewish custom, seated
on the floor, reclining on the bosom of someone was a common practice.
-John 13:23. John reclined in Jesus’ bosom.
-John 1:18. Jesus is now, “in the bosom
of the Father”
16:23. “...and in hell (#86 Hades)...”
Obviously, this is not the
grave yet he calls it a “place”
(16:28). The picture of Hades both in
Greek and inter-testament rabbinical literature is the unseen place where the
souls of the dead exist apart from the body.
In it there is a place of torment for the wicked called, “Tartarus” (2Pe. 2:4; cf. 1Pe.3:19;
Jude 6).
Notice that the “grave” from which the other Lazarus came
forth bodily was “mneemeion” [#3419],
not “Hades” (John 11:38).
(For further examination, see section II on Hades.)
16:23. “...he lifted up his eyes...and
saw Abraham afar off”
Annihilationists always try
to escape the weight of this story by scoffing at the idea that the dead have “eyes.”
However, man has a spirit
(1Thes 5:23). “Spirits” are said to have eyes
and to see. Spiritual eyes do not have
to be physical. “A spirit does not have flesh and bone” -Lk.24:39
Eph.1:18. “…having the eyes of your understanding enlightened”
“God is a spirit” (Jn.4:24) yet is said to have
“eyes.”
-1Pe.3:12. “The eyes of the Lord
are upon the righteous”
-Heb. 4:13. “All things are naked and
laid open before His eyes.”
-Prov.15:3. “The eyes of the Lord are
in every place beholding...”
Angels are spirits. Heb.1:7.
“He makes his angels spirits”
-Ac.8:26, 29, 39. An angel who spoke to
Philip was called a “spirit”.
-Matt. 18:10. Angels of children behold the face of God
-1Tim. 3:16. “seen of angels”
Men can see while “in the spirit”
-Rev. 1:10. While John was “in the spirit” he “saw” the dead standing before God (Rev. 20:11-12).
Demons, who are also called, “spirits” can see. (Mark
3:11)
16:24. “...and he cried and said,
Father Abraham, have mercy on me,...”
Spirits, or souls, are said to speak. If this were not
possible, the repeated picture of them doing so would be misleading.
The holy
spirit spoke:
-Acts 13:2. “And the Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul”
-Ac.10:19;
11:12. “The Spirit bade me go with them”
Dead people
were said to speak
-1Sam.28:3-19;
1Chron. 10:13-14. “And Samuel said to Saul...”
(28:15-16)
-Rev. 6:9. “And I saw ...the souls of them
that had been slain... and they cried with a great voice, saying...”
-Luke 9:29-31. Moses and Elijah appeared and talked with Jesus on the mount of
transfiguration about his coming death.
Note: Moses was dead and buried.
(cf. Deut. 34:5-6; Jude 1:9).
OBJECTION: The transfiguration was only a “vision” (Mat. 17:5).
ANSWER: It is called a “vision” but Jesus, who was real, was discussing his coming death
with Moses. It makes no sense that
Jesus was discussing his death with someone who did not exist.
Real things were often seen
in visions.
-Ac. 26:16,
19. Paul
saw and heard Jesus in a “vision”
(1Cor. 9:1; 15:8).
-Acts
9:12. Paul saw Ananias coming to
him.
OBJECTION: These are figurative statements.
ANSWER: They could be
literal. At least it is strange that
God would use so much of this sort of language if He did not want us to think
souls continue to exist.
The devil and
demons were spirits, yet they spoke.
-Job 1:6-7. Satan spoke with God. cf. (2Cor. 11:14)
-1Kings 22:21. A lying spirit came forth
and spoke.
-Luke 4:1-6. The Devil spoke to Jesus.
-Matt. 8:28-32. Demons talked to Jesus
about going into the pit.
-Luke 4:33-36. A spirit of an unclean demon in a man, spoke.
-Mat.12:43-45. An unclean spirit could speak while out of a man.
-Mark 3:11. Demons saw and cried out.
16:24. “...dip the tip of his finger...”
God, who is a
spirit with no physical body, has a “finger”.
-Ex.31:18. The Ten Commandments were
written by the finger of God.
(Pretty substantial “finger”! cf. John
4:24; Luke 24:39)
-Luke 11:20. Jesus, “by the finger of God cast out demons”
16:24. “...in water and cool my tongue”
God is said to
have “lips” and a “tongue”
-Is 30:27. “The lips and tongue of the Lord”
Angels are
said to have tongues
-2Cor.13:1. “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels” (The word
here refers to the language they speak but it comes from the idea of having a
tongue to speak)
16:23. “...being in torments”
[#931 basanois]
16:28. “this place of torment”
[#931 basanois]
#931 Basanois...torment [a noun]
-Mat. 4:24. “taken
with divers diseases and torments”
#930 Basanistees...One
who torments another. [a noun]