The Rich man and Lazarus

DamianWarS · Nov 20, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Mar_4:34 But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

Mar_7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

Luk 8:10 And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.
Luk 8:11 Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.

The implication here is he will only speak a parable to others without explaining but when he speaks a parable to the disciples, he will explain it to them.

So, if he speaks about something to the disciples only but does not call it a parable and does not explain it, then it seems logical it was based on something that actually happened and is not a made up story/parable.

Mat 13:36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

Mat_15:15 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.

We see this in these passages.

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Here Jesus tells a story but does not call it a parable nor does he ever explain it to the disciples. The reason why is it is not a parable. It is a story about two literal people who died and what happened to them. There isn't anything to explain not to mention the Jews already believed in a Hades type concept for the wicked and already believed in heaven but referred to as Abraham's bosom which is father Abraham taking care of them after they have died.

the context of the passage starts in chapter 14 where Jesus is at a rich pharisees house eating. Jesus speak several accounts in the immediate context that could be called a parable and are in several list. I came up with about them 7 of them that are more parable like to me but other lists have double the amount taking a proverbial line as a parable. So here is my list (included is the Rich Man and Lazarus)

1. Parable of the Guest - Luke 14:7-11
2. Parable of the Dinner - Luke 14:16-24
3. The Lost Sheep - Luke 15:4–6
4. The Lost Coin - Luke 15:8–9
5. Parable of the Prodigal Son - Luke 15:11–32
6. The Unjust Steward - Luke 16:1–13
7. Rich man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19–31

The Parable of the Guest opens saying "And He began speaking a parable to the invited guests..." the audience are the guest and this account is an explicit parable

Parable of the Dinner's direct audience is the person who said to Jesus the verse before "Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!" and the indirect audience is all present. Jesus is still speaking to the guests. it opens saying "But He said to him, “A man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many..." so in this case if we are to call it a parable it is an implicit parable as it does not actually identify it as a parable.

The Lost Sheep, The Lost Coin and, the Prodigal Son are a grouping or parables all shared together meant to emphasis the same point but with different perspectives, but all share similar ideas, something is lost, searched for and found then there is rejoicing. the prodigal son is probably the most influential. They are all implicit parables except the lost sheep but because they are all the same theme and of the same series they get grouped together and inherit the same parable context.

Who is the audience? The audience is the same except now more people are starting to gather in and listen more intently. v1-2 establish the audience saying "Now all the tax collectors and the sinners were coming near Him to listen to Him. Both the Pharisees and the scribes began to grumble, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them." this starts to establish a greater interested audience and it starts to reveal the Pharisees were paying attention on a level and not liking it.

The Unjust Steward now Jesus has their attention he ignores the audience and speaks to his disciples. His disciples are the direct audience but the intended audience is the pharisees, tax collectors and sinners getting more and more pointed at the pharisees. This is still an implicit parable and there isn't anywhere that actually says it is a parable except that it's in a parable context.

Rich man and Lazarus This now gets the attention of the pharisees as v14 says "Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him..." so they were listening and He has their attention and they are set up in position for the knockout blow and this brings on the Rich Man and Lazarus which is very specifically aimed at the Pharisees. Jesus had to work to get here and all the parables preceding this built this moment up for this message. He was still speaking to his disciples directly but the Pharisees were the intended audience and it is very tongue and cheek.

out of these 7 accounts only 2 are explicit parables and there is a progressive audience that Jesus was building toward but shifted the direct audience to his disciples at the end once he got their attention. There is more Jesus said of course and they could be identified as parables but if so they are still on implicit. Jesus may have explained these accounts at a later time but scripture doesn't reveal this. If we are to say that scripture must call it a parable and those spoken direct to his disciples must be explicitly explained at a later time then most of what Jesus says in this context would be dismissed as a parable.

As you have revealed scripture tells us Jesus did not speak to the crowds outside of parables and explained everything later to his disciples. So if this is the case the Rich man and Lazarus must be a parable as it was aimed at the pharisees and what it should implicitly mean is that Jesus at a later unspoken time revealed the things to his disciples that was spoken at the dinner.

Mark51 · Nov 21, 2018

Jesus Christ was speaking to his disciples in the present of the Pharisees and scribes prior to the account at Luke 16:19-31. The Pharisees sneered with contempt at Jesus because they reckoned that they, as the religious rulers, were the only ones entitled to the bosom position of Abraham. In their eyes, the common people did not come into the picture at all. Those rulers said to Jesus in an earlier encounter with him: “We are Abraham’s offspring,” and again: “Our father is Abraham,” and yet again: “We have one Father, God.”-John 8:33, 39, 41.

He often taught a lesson by telling a story through the means of parables or illustrations. In this illustration, the rich man well pictures the Jewish clergy who were well provided for with spiritual provisions; who considered themselves children of the kingdom, clothed in purple; who were very self-righteous, wearing fine linen; and who were proud of being Abraham’s offspring. (Matthew 23:27, 28; Romans 3:1, 2; Revelation 19:8) The beggar Lazarus well pictures the Jewish common people, who were despised by the clergy, who because of neglect were spiritually sick and were hungering and thirsting for righteousness, and who appreciated their need of the Great Physician, Christ Jesus.-John 7:49; Matthew 5:6; Mark 2:17.

The death of the rich man and of Lazarus pictured a change taking place in the relative positions of these two classes. This should be no surprise to us because the Bible shows that death can be used symbolically, representing people as dying or having died though still alive, meaning thereby that a a great change in one’s life or course of action. Compare Romans 6:2, 11-13; 7:4-6; Colossians 3:3; 1 Timothy 5:6. A death, or change from former conditions, happened when Jesus fed the Lazarus class spiritually, and they thus came into the favor of the greater Abraham, Jehovah God. At the same time, the false religious leaders “died” with respect to having God’s favor. Being cast off, they suffered torments when Christ’s followers after Pentecost forcefully exposed their evil works. (Acts 7:51-57) So this illustration is not literal and does not teach that some dead persons are tormented in a literal fiery hell.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable or Scriptural to believe that a man suffers torment simply because he is rich, wears good clothing and has plenty to eat. It is not Scriptural to believe that one is blessed with heavenly life just because he is a beggar. Jesus said nothing about the rich man’s living a degraded life worthy of “fiery” punishment; the man’s failing was that he did not feed (spiritually) the poor. Further, Jesus said nothing about Lazarus’ doing good things, things that clearly would merit his going to heaven, which is what some may claim is the meaning of his being taken to Abraham’s bosom. Furthermore, Abraham, like David, was dead and in his grave, so angels literally could not carry Lazarus to his bosom. (Acts 2:29, 34) None of God’s servants had a heavenly reward held out to them before the coming of Christ Jesus; that is why his apostles-even after his resurrection-were looking to an earthly kingdom. (Psalms 45:16; Acts 1:6-8) Besides, Abraham could not have been in heaven in view of Jesus’ words: “No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man”?(John 3:13) And if the rich man were in a literal fire, surely Lazarus could not benefit him with just a drop of water. All of these are figures of speech.

M Strain Jr · Nov 21, 2018

I found these today while searching for answers. Not sure how I feel about all of it, but it's a good read nonetheless:

http://www.cdmi.org/images/pdf/booklets/03-TheTruthAboutHell.pdf

http://www.cdmi.org/images/pdf/booklets/21-TheRichManAndLazarus.pdf

2tim_215 · Nov 22, 2018

Jesus didn't explain it to the disciples so even if it was a parable it certainly wasn't handled the same way as others were. It's quite possible that many of those Jews at the time knew Lazarus being a beggar, they would have seen him around.

ewq1938 · Nov 22, 2018

2tim_215 said:
Jesus didn't explain it to the disciples so even if it was a parable it certainly wasn't handled the same way as others were. It's wuite possible that many of those Jews at the time knew Lazarus being a beggar, they would have seen him around.

Yes and what "parable" has a real person's name? A parable is supposed to be a made up situation with fictional people to teach a lesson of something true that corresponds to something in real life, or the afterlife as it is in this situation.

Read actual parables and then read this story. This doesn't sound anything like a parable, not to mention it is never called one and no parable ever has a person's actual name because parables are general things of truth with no specific people in them but this one is extremely specific. I believe the rich man and Lazarus were two very real people and two very real fates used to warn the rest of us.

M Strain Jr · Nov 22, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Yes and what "parable" has a real person's name? A parable is supposed to be a made up situation with fictional people to teach a lesson of something true that corresponds to something in real life, or the afterlife as it is in this situation.

Read actual parables and then read this story. This doesn't sound anything like a parable, not to mention it is never called one and no parable ever has a person's actual name because parables are general things of truth with no specific people in them but this one is extremely specific. I believe the rich man and Lazarus were two very real people and two very real fates used to warn the rest of us.

A person's name doesn't disqualify a parable as fiction. Looking outside the Bible, there are other parables that include people's names, such as the Persian parable "Akhfash's Goat" about a philosopher who had trained his goat to nod his head whenever it was asked if it understood a book. But Akhfash was definitely fiction, not real. Then there's the parable "Abuzei and Tair" from the collection Fables and Parables (1779) by Ignacy Krasicki, which reads:

"Congratulate me, father," said Tair, "I prosper.
Tomorrow I am to become the Sultan's brother-
in-law and hunt with him." Quoth father: "All does alter,
Your lord's good graces, women's favor, autumn weather."
He had guessed aright, the son's plans did not turn out well:
The Sultan withheld his sister, all day the rain fell.

But Tair is, of course, fiction.

The reason why some church leaders teach that the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is real is that it's the only place in the Bible where Hades (or Sheol) is explicitly referred to as a place of torment, thus backing the doctrine of Hell. If this parable were to be acknowledged as fiction along with all the rest of Jesus's parables, then there is no solid proof in the gospels of people being tormented forever in fire.

As I've stated before, Luke was a companion of Paul. Paul was a Pharisee. Pharisees had broken away from the written traditions of the Old Testament ("Pharisee" coming from the Aramaic word פְּרִישַׁיָּא‬, separated) with their own oral traditions. They believed in eternal torment for unbelievers, which is something the Saduccees didn't believe, since such a thing is not in the Old Testament. This explains why Luke is the only New Testament writer to use Hades as a place of eternal torment, while Matthew, Mark, and the John of Revelation did not.

Interestingly, in Acts 2:27, Peter (as written by Luke) is quoting Psalm 16:10 from the Septuagint (since Luke was Greek), which has King David saying:

ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν
For you will not leave the soul of me behind in Hades, nor will you give the pious one of you to see decay.

The word ἐγκαταλείψεις can be translated as "you will leave behind" or "you will abandon". It's David saying that God will not leave him in Hades, in the sense that he will be there after death but God won't leave him there.

Verse 31 continues with Peter saying that his quote from Psalm 16 was David speaking of the Messiah, with the implication being that Jesus went to Hades. Of course, if you read Psalm 16, it appears in context that David is speaking of himself, so again we have to realize that Luke is probably writing through the lens of his teacher Paul. Paul is known in his letters to make arguments based on such kinds of logic: "If David died and his body was indeed decayed, that means he must have been speaking of another pious one who would not see decay, so that must be Jesus Christ." (Acts 13:36 has Paul pointing out that David died, was buried, and did indeed see decay, in contrast to Jesus who rose and wasn't decayed, creating a parallel here.) Or maybe David was just hopeful that God would let him live forever because of his self-proclaimed pious nature.

So we have ideas of David and/or Jesus going to Hades. Again, Hades, as used in the Septuagint, is ALWAYS a replacement for Sheol, the place where everyone goes when they die. To suggest that it is a place of torment is strange because that means that David went to Hades to be tormented. I tend to go with the phraseology of Jesus and Paul, that the dead are "asleep" and awaiting the resurrection. The Old Testament is clear that in Sheol, the dead know nothing, the dead cannot praise God, and so on, which I have already quoted earlier.

Geez, I put so much research and so many hours into my posts here. You guys are tiring me out.

ewq1938 · Nov 22, 2018

M Strain Jr said:
A person's name doesn't disqualify a parable as fiction.

Yet it is notable that Jesus didn't use any other actual names in parables we know are definitely parables. This story about Lazarus is very very specific. It doesn't read like a parable IMO. And of course, even if it is a parable what it discloses is still true: the dead are awake not sleeping, and there is a place for bad people to go, and a different place where good people go

M Strain Jr · Nov 22, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Yet it is notable that Jesus didn't use any other actual names in parables we know are definitely parables. This story about Lazarus is very very specific. It doesn't read like a parable IMO. And of course, even if it is a parable what it discloses is still true: the dead are awake not sleeping, and there is a place for bad people to go, and a different place where good people go

I like how I have researched this particular topic in as an objective way as possible for many years now, and it took me almost two hours to write my last comment here, yet you tell me that I'm wrong without giving me any real indication as to why your opinion represents truth. I used the words of the Bible to back up my answer, as well as references to other parables outside of the Bible. This is simply a case of stubbornness and not a willingness to learn or even be open to new ideas. You just want to be right. But what is more correct: the Bible, or a stubborn opinion based merely on what you want to believe?

If you want to argue with me, you have to use the Bible so that we are at least both using the very thing that Christianity is based upon. The meanings of the words in the Bible are not malleable by anyone, especially someone who in their argument says "IMO".

ewq1938 · Nov 22, 2018

M Strain Jr said:
I like how I have researched this particular topic in as an objective way as possible for many years now, and it took me almost two hours to write my last comment here, yet you tell me that I'm wrong without giving me any real indication as to why your opinion represents truth.

The length of a post does not equal correctness or being more correct than succinct posts. I also did not use extra-biblical sources.

This is simply a case of stubbornness and not a willingness to learn or even be open to new ideas. You just want to be right. But what is more correct: the Bible, or a stubborn opinion based merely on what you want to believe?

The same words can be directed to yourself. You even said there is nothing to corroborate the entire story which implies you don't consider it to even be scripture. I find it a bit odd that you think you are the unbiased one in this discussion and that others are simply "stubborn".

If you want to argue with me, you have to use the Bible so that we are at least both using the very thing that Christianity is based upon.

Good thing that is what I have been doing.

M Strain Jr · Nov 22, 2018

ewq1938 said:
The length of a post does not equal correctness or being more correct than succinct posts. I also did not use extra-biblical sources.

The same words can be directed to yourself. You even said there is nothing to corroborate the entire story which implies you don't consider it to even be scripture. I find it a bit odd that you think you are the unbiased one in this discussion and that others are simply "stubborn".

Good thing that is what I have been doing.

I guess it's because, in order to come to my present conclusion on these matters, I had to
1) study the Koine Greek of the New Testament (as well as some relevant Hebrew) for several years;
2) use what I was finding in the Bible itself to disprove the Lutheran and Baptist doctrines I had been raised in my who childhood;
3) use the Bible to fill my now doctrinally empty mind with what it was actually saying while simultaneously learning to accept what I was seeing as truth without inserting too much opinion. (I mean, opinion can be good because there are some blanks to fill in. But I have come to find that the Bible is quite clear about certain things.); and
4) Continue in these things, studying them for well over a decade now to ensure the arguments for what I came to believe outweighed the evidence to the contrary.

This being said, I don't know how you can tell me that I am stubborn. It was being humble enough to admit that my core beliefs were wrong that got me to where I am now. My whole purpose concerning the Bible is to discover what it is actually saying, rather than what someone tells me or what I may want to believe. That is an objective study.

I used to believe in the doctrine of hell. I used to cry because I thought my grandmother was burning in flames for all of eternity because she would stubbornly believe that being baptized a Catholic was all she needed. And I believed in the doctrine of hell because my KJV Bible (which my preacher insisted was the most accurate version of the Bible) used the word "hell", and it was something the preacher taught and my parents believed. The televangelists who always want everyone's money teach it too.

But when I actually started doing a deep study of New Testament Greek, I learned that there were a lot of things about the Bible that my parents didn't know and that my preacher didn't talk about.

There is a whole field of scholarship known as textual criticism. See, people say that the Word of God is inerrant, but the problem is... which Word of God? As it turns out, there are thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that have been discovered, and most of them are in disagreement with each other over many points. An example of this is what the soldier near the cross said after Jesus cried out and died. Did he say "Truly this was the Son of God", "Truly this was the son of a god", or "Truly this was a god's son"? Well, there are different Greek manuscripts that all read differently. So textual criticism is the field of study that tries to figure out which is the more accurate reading that was probably penned by the writer (since we don't have any of the original manuscripts, just copies of copies of copies of copies). So things are not as clear-cut as most Christians think.

There have been attempts to sort this all out, and it has mostly whittled down to four main compilation texts today: the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus, Wescott-Hort, and the Nestle-Aland. I tend to go with the latter two, as do most modern translations. Between these texts are thousands of variants, some in important and rather suspicious places. If you don't know much about it, you'd be surprised at how deep and complex it gets. I had spent days with headaches from trying to sort things out for my translation of Mark that I did some years ago. It's very hard!

But part of the problem I have to deal with when arguing for this stuff is that a lot of Christians are following doctrines that have been derived from one translation or another. The KJV, for example, is a very outdated translation that has been made obsolete for serious study by a modern scholarship that has since seen discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, much older copies of the NT, as well as caches full of secular ancient Koine Greek documents that have helped to answer questions of certain word meanings and such. So my pastor is objectively wrong to say that the KJV is the best translation because his assertion is based merely on his opinion and the doctrine he learned in school and now teaches, rather than anything based in fact. When I tried to bring up some things to the assistant pastor at the time, he deflected by giving me a bunch of audio tapes to listen to. They were boring and didn't answer any of the questions I had. I was surprised at how inept the people teaching me were when I brought up topics far outside anything they knew. It was so discouraging that I basically turned agnostic for a while. Eventually I left the church.

When I say that the Bible does not talk about "hell" in the way that modern mainstream churches do, that is based on many years of study into that topic. I tried to prove the doctrine of hell, and I tried to disprove it. Hell came up short. There just isn't enough evidence to form a clear doctrine over it. If you want, I can lay it all out in a post of my own and you can see what you think. It will be a lot a work and will require many hours of my time, but I would do it just for you if you really wanted. Or you can go on without challenging your beliefs so you can keep going on like you are. It makes people uncomfortable to consider that some long-held belief that's core to their religious thought might be wrong, and I had one guy actually get violent with me (because violence is one of the fruits of the spirit, you know

).

But remember that my grandmother was stubborn too.
(I just wanted to go out on a zinger that brought my post full circle.)

ewq1938 · Nov 23, 2018

M Strain Jr said:
But remember that my grandmother was stubborn too.

Disagreeing with you does not make me stubborn or unable to question popular beliefs. I simply believe you are incorrect and I have presented my arguments and believe I have made my case on every point.

I believe that bad people go to Hades and good people to heaven (Abraham's bosom in Jewish terms) and I base that on the story Christ told about two people and what happened to them. It matters not whether it's fictional people or historic people as the lesson of it is still true.

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 23, 2018

M Strain Jr said:
I found these today while searching for answers. Not sure how I feel about all of it, but it's a good read nonetheless:

http://www.cdmi.org/images/pdf/booklets/03-TheTruthAboutHell.pdf

http://www.cdmi.org/images/pdf/booklets/21-TheRichManAndLazarus.pdf

Hello and welcome to CF.
That "covenantle" parable is perhaps my largest study of the Bible besides the Gehenna/Lake of Fire in Revelation. Fascinating.........

This is a thread I created back in 2008 and it is still open:

Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable
Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable (2)

A recent thread on the Great City/Queen and Lake of Fire if you and or others are interested:

Is the GREAT CITY in Revelation symbolizing the LAKE OF FIRE?

Tho this is a rather novel view I have, I can view the Rich man in Luke 16 being married to the Harlot/Queen in Revelation.
The 2 key words are "purple and "fine linen", the clothing of OC Royalty and Kings

Is the GREAT CITY in Revelation symbolizing the LAKE OF FIRE?

Purple and fine linen are found together in just 2 chapters/3 verses of the NT:

Luke 16:19
“There was a certain Rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.

1 Kings 21:25
But there was no one like Ahab who sold himself to do wickedness in the sight of the LORD, because Jezebel his wife stirred him up.

Revelation 18:
7 “In the measure that She glorified herself and lived luxuriously, in the same measure give Her torment and sorrow;
for She says in her heart, ‘I sit as Queen, and am no widow, and will not see sorrow.'

Revelation 2:20 “Nevertheless I have a few things against The, because thou sufferest[ that woman/wife Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess,.......

12 “merchandise of gold and silver, precious stones and pearls, fine linen and purple, silk and scarlet
16 “and saying, ‘woe, woe, that great City that was clothed in fine linen, purple, and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls!...............

Lazarus is only mentioned in 1 chapter of Luke and 2 chapters in John

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

We begin by scrutinizing the description Yeshua gives us of the rich man. First, he tells us that this man was clothed in purple and fine linen. This type of clothing would not have been out of the ordinary for one of considerable wealth during this time period. However, this attire also has symbolic meaning. The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary says: "The wearing of purple was associated particularly with royalty . . ." (p. 863, "Purple"). In addition, the New Bible Dictionary tells us: "The use of linen in OT times was prescribed for priests (Ex. 28:39). The coat, turban and girdle must be of fine linen." (p. 702, "Linen").

EXODUS 19:6 And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel. (Brenton's LXX)

So we see that the garments worn by this rich man were symbolic of royalty and the priesthood.

Verse 19 also tells us that the rich man "fared sumptuously every day." Figuratively, this represents the magnificent spiritual feast available only to the Jews, who were the sole remaining part of God's called people, Israel. In the 1st century CE, they were the only people on earth who had the true religion....

The clothing of the rich man identifies him symbolically with the people of Israel, chosen by God to be His special people. They were called to be a witness to the nations surrounding them, confirming the blessings available to those who would obey God and keep His laws...............
The Jews were truly rich, feasting on God's spiritual blessings. Yet these very gifts caused them to stumble because they prompted them to self-righteousness..........

While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries, you can be certain that it did not escape the notice of the Pharisees and scribes to which Yeshua was speaking.........
This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!

Yeshua uses the last two verses of this parable as an amazing prophecy of his pending resurrection from the dead. The rich man says that although his brothers may not accept the scriptural evidence for the identity of the Messiah, they will accept the evidence of one who is raised from the dead.

John 11:
43 Now when He had said these things, He cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth!”
44 And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Loose him, and let him go.”

I like this commentator and especially his 7 part series on "Melchizedek" of his Royal Priesthood series.

Kindgdom Bible Studies Royal Priesthood Part 17

His commentary on the Rich man and Lazarus is also fairly good as he delves into the Greek"

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page

At the beginning of Jesus’ discourse in chapter fifteen of Luke the statement is made that “He spoke this parable unto them, saying,” (Lk. 15:3). The Greek is very definite in making the word for parable clearly a singular noun. It is “the parable this..”
This statement is followed by five separate stories, the first of which is the story of the lost sheep, and the last is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. You see, the teaching in chapter sixteen is but the continuation of the discourse in chapter fifteen, without interruption. Now, which of the five stories He gave them in this sermon was called a parable?

The only one of the five which is prefaced by the claim, “And He spoke this parable unto them,” was the story about the lost sheep. Was the lost sheep the only one that could be called a parable? And yet, any preacher or believer that I know will answer that the story of the lost coin, as well as the prodigal son, were also parables. Then why was the singular used - “this parable”?
It should be clear to any thinking mind that all these stories were ONE PARABLE, like the facets of a diamond, as they turn each scintillates with new brilliance. Each was illustrating a view point of one great truth, and together they compose a whole. And this parabolic discourse of Jesus is continued into chapter sixteen of Luke, including the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

The truth is that all five stories are each a fractional part of the complete parable, and when we read, “He spoke this parable unto them,”....It is a careless assumption and an unfounded assertion to argue that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable! ............

Purple is the color of royalty. Fine linen stands for righteousness in this instance the righteousness of the law, established by the priests and Levites who, dressed in white linen, officiated in the sacrifices and ceremonies of the nation. The rich man was “clothed in purple and fine linen.” Those who are in purple are rulers. The rich man was a ruler. And Jesus never uttered His parables or sermons concerning someone away off in Siberia or China. He spoke to and of the Jews, the church of His day. Judah was the royal tribe, and purple is the color pertaining to royalty. The kingdom of Judah had the ministry of the priesthood - clothed in fine linen. The whole nation, in fact, was called to be a kingdom of priests unto God (Ex. 19:6). By this language Christ was making His meaning very clear to the Pharisees.

This rich man “fared sumptuously every day.” But this is not talking about natural food. The Jewish nation was the favorite of heaven - rich in the mercies and blessings of the Lord. No nation in the history of time had been so highly favored as the house of Judah. They had the elaborate sacrificial service of the great and glorious temple in Jerusalem. They had the scriptures, the holy law and covenant of Yahweh.

.

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 23, 2018

DamianWarS said:
What we read in this passage is two Jewish men who die. One is a desired Jewish man with worldly possessions and the other is a wretched man, feeble and an embarrassment. Both die, one go to Abraham's side, the other Hades. The parable tells of a great chasm between the two that cannot be cross and tell us of torment from fire in Hades so bad that the slightest drop would be comforting.
I see a lot of these elements as spiritual metaphors not as physical images of the afterlife.
This whole account has lots of analogies and spiritual metaphors and this tells me it is a parable and not a mirror of the afterlife.

It wasn't till I started translating this parable some years ago that I realized the plural "YE" is used. So the Rich man is also symbolizing a "people".
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM

And he cried and said, FATHER ABRAHAM, have mercy on me...but Abraham said ... SON (Grk., teknon-offspring), between us and you (Grk., YOU PEOPLE) is a GREAT GULF FIXED: so that they (Grk., the ONES) which would pass from hence to you (Grk., YOU PEOPLE) cannot; neither can they pass that would come from thence.” we will see that a plurality of people is being addressed, rather than a single individual. Clearly, this rich man was of Israel, of the seed of Abraham, and a blessed and highly favored company. The Pharisees boasted of their descent from Abraham and expected to enter Paradise because of that fact.

Luke 16:26
And upon all of these between us[NC/Faith/Life] and ye[OC/Law/Death] a great chasm hath been established so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye no may be able,
neither thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276> (5725)

Hebrews 11:29
By Faith They crossed-over/diebhsan <1224> (5627) the Red Sea as thru Dry, which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

Matthew 26:
63 and Jesus was silent. And the Chief-priest answering said to Him, `I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou mayest say to us, if thou art the Christ--the Son of God.'
64Jesus is saying to him "thou say.
Moreover I am saying to ye, from now ye shall be seeing the Son of the Man sitting out of rights of the power and coming upon the clouds of the heaven

As far as I know, the only group of people he condemned to "gehenna" were the corrupt murderous Judean rulers:

Matthew 23:33
'Serpents! brood of vipers!
how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?

LUKE 16:29
"Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' "

.

DamianWarS · Nov 23, 2018

LittleLambofJesus said:
It wasn't till I started translating this parable some years ago that I realized the plural "YE" is used. So the Rich man is also symbolizing a "people".
ABRAHAM'S BOSOM
Luke 16:26
And upon all of these between us[NC/Faith/Life] and ye[OC/Law/Death] a great chasm hath been established so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye no may be able,
neither thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276> (5725)

Hebrews 11:29
By Faith They crossed-over/diebhsan <1224> (5627) the Red Sea as thru Dry, which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

Matthew 26:
63 and Jesus was silent. And the Chief-priest answering said to Him, `I adjure thee, by the living God, that thou mayest say to us, if thou art the Christ--the Son of God.'
64Jesus is saying to him "thou say.
Moreover I am saying to ye, from now ye shall be seeing the Son of the Man sitting out of rights of the power and coming upon the clouds of the heaven

As far as I know, the only group of people he condemned to "gehenna" were the corrupt murderous Judean rulers:

Matthew 23:33
'Serpents! brood of vipers!
how may ye escape from the judgment of the gehenna?

LUKE 16:29
"Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.'"

what translation is this? I know "you" is ambiguous but I wasn't able to find a single translation that uses "ye" or find the exact quote of the verse you provide, is it your own translation? The greek does use a plural 2nd person so a plural pronoun is fitting. I will point out however "ye" is grammatically incorrect as it is used as the subject not as the object which "you" would be used (yes "you" is correct old english) and this is why translations like the KJV use "you" in this passage.

The Rich man and Abraham exchange pronouns prior to this and it is singular for the Rich man so indeed when Abraham says "between us and you" he does refer to collective bodies in these distinct places like saying "between all of us here and all of you there..." and this is consistent with the other plurals used like "...those who wish to come over from here to you (plural) will not be able..."

it was a parable aimed at the listening pharisees and I see Jesus making an "us and them" line here saying essentially your kind are not allow to cross over here. It's quite pointed but of course he gets away with it because he is speaking to the disciples and although the pharisees are the intended audience they are not the direct audience.

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 23, 2018

DamianWarS said:
what translation is this? I know "you" is ambiguous but I wasn't able to find a single translation that uses "ye" or find the exact quote of the verse you provide, is it your own translation? The greek does use a plural 2nd person so a plural pronoun is fitting. I will point out however "ye" is grammatically incorrect as it is used as the subject not as the object which "you" would be used (yes "you" is correct old english) and this is why translations like the KJV use "you" in this passage.

The Rich man and Abraham exchange pronouns prior to this and it is singular for the Rich man so indeed when Abraham says "between us and you" he does refer to collective bodies in these distinct places like saying "between all of us here and all of you there..." and this is consistent with the other plurals used like "...those who wish to come over from here to you (plural) will not be able..."

it was a parable aimed at the listening pharisees and I see Jesus making an "us and them" line here saying essentially your kind are not allow to cross over here. It's quite pointed but of course he gets away with it because he is speaking to the disciples and although the pharisees are the intended audience they are not the direct audience.

Yeah that clarifies it. I would think the KJV would have used "thee" if it meant singular?

Here is another example why I look up each word in verses.
Look at these 2 completely different greek words #1224 and #1276 which are rendered the same in most Bible versions.

When I looked up #1276, it means to sail, such as crossing over in ship/boat, and the ISA Scripture4All interlinear actually renders it as "ferrying" and I scratched my head over that for awhile.....

Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

Luke 16:26
And upon all of these between us and ye a great chasm hath been established
so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye no may be able,
neither thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276> (5725)

1276. diaperao from 1223 and a derivative of the base of 4008;
to cross entirely:--go over, pass (over), sail over.

Matthew 9:1
So He got into a boat, crossed over<1276>, and came to His own city
Acts 21:2
And finding a ship sailing<1276> over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail.

If you look at Hebrews 11:29, it mentions the Hebrews crossing over dry land, and the Egyptians being drowned. Possibly a connection?

Hebrews 11:29
By Faith They crossed-over/diebhsan <1224> (5627) the Red Sea as thru Dry,
which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

.

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 23, 2018

ewq1938 said:
Yes and what "parable" has a real person's name? A parable is supposed to be a made up situation with fictional people to teach a lesson of something true that corresponds to something in real life, or the afterlife as it is in this situation.

Read actual parables and then read this story. This doesn't sound anything like a parable, not to mention it is never called one and no parable ever has a person's actual name because parables are general things of truth with no specific people in them but this one is extremely specific. I believe the rich man and Lazarus were two very real people and two very real fates used to warn the rest of us.

Yes Lazarus, Moses and Abraham are real and mentioned in it and thus was a big clue to those hearing it what this parable was actually about.
The whole primary focus of that story/parable is the RESURRECTION and the OC vs the NC.

The sects of the corrupt Sadducees and High Priesthood didn't believe in a resurrection. Notice in John 12 where the Chief Priests wanted to kill Lazarus:

John 12:9
9 Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.
10 But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;

Matthew 22:
23 The same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him and asked Him,
34 But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together.

Paul also butted heads with them and the Pharisees concerning the resurrection:

Acts 5:17
Then the high priest rose up, and all those who were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and they were filled with indignation,
Acts 23:
6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council,
7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.
8 For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit;
but the Pharisees confess both.

And John had this to say about both of them concerning the prophecy of 70ad.
Christ made them His footstool...

Matthew 3:7
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them,
“Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the being about wrath/ ὀργῆς<3709> to come?

Luke 3:7
Then he said to the multitudes that came out to be baptized by him, “Brood of vipers! Who warned ye to flee from the being about wrath/ὀργῆς<3709> to come?

Luke 21:.
23 “But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
For there will be Great Distress in the land and wrath/ὀργὴ <3709> upon this people.

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

Yeshua uses the last two verses of this parable as an amazing prophecy of his pending resurrection from the dead.
The rich man says that although his brothers may not accept the scriptural evidence for the identity of the Messiah, they will accept the evidence of one who is raised from the dead.

But Abraham answers and plainly tells him that anyone who rejects the Bible's teaching about the Messiah will also refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a miraculous resurrection. This last verse is a sad prophecy about the Jews who, despite God's resurrection of His son from the power of the grave, have failed to recognize Yeshua as the prophesied Messiah.

Yeshua ends this parable abruptly, with no real resolution presented

,

DamianWarS · Nov 23, 2018

LittleLambofJesus said:
Yeah that clarifies it. I would think the KJV would have used "thee" if it meant singular?

Here is another example why I look up each word in verses.
Look at these 2 completely different greek words #1224 and #1276 which are rendered the same in most Bible versions.

When I looked up #1276, it means to sail, such as crossing over in ship/boat, and the ISA Scripture4All interlinear actually renders it as "ferrying" and I scratched my head over that for awhile.....

Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

Luke 16:26
And upon all of these between us and ye a great chasm hath been established
so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye no may be able,
neither thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276> (5725)

1276. diaperao from 1223 and a derivative of the base of 4008;
to cross entirely:--go over, pass (over), sail over.

Matthew 9:1
So He got into a boat, crossed over<1276>, and came to His own city
Acts 21:2
And finding a ship sailing<1276> over to Phoenicia, we went aboard and set sail.

If you look at Hebrews 11:29, it mentions the Hebrews crossing over dry land, and the Egyptians being drowned. Possibly a connection?

Hebrews 11:29
By Faith They crossed-over/diebhsan <1224> (5627) the Red Sea as thru Dry,
which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

.

we know the word "hades" is used which I don't actually believe is the word Jesus used but it is a borrowed word from greek mythology. Jesus is at the latter bit of the hellenization period were greek culture had a lot of impact on the Jews. For example this is when the book of Enoch is probably written as it's ideas are adapted from greek mythology as the detail of the afterlife is far out of reach of it's claimed authorship and it happens to line up exactly with the hellenization period.

But also in greek mythology is the river styx connecting earth to the underworld where the dead cross. Since I accept this as a parable I do not reject Jesus's contextual licence to give a version of the afterlife that the intended audience would accept. I'm not saying this chasm was the river styxs but I do not eliminate the greek influence this chasm may have had upon Jews of that day and this chasm may have been an adapted version of styx in a jewish context. Jesus may have used these images of the afterlife and adapt them himself to push the point he wanted, but I don't think the point was to reveal to us what the afterlife looks like in a visually speaking.

The Rich man and Lazarus

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Newbie

Member

Well-Known Member

I love you three.

Member

I love you three.

Member

I love you three.

Member

I love you three.

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Similar threads