God's purpose for sharing about the Rich Man?

[Der Alte]

I don't know how they could decide it's factual when Jesus gave it as a parable. Indifference seems to be the sin alluded to.

• Jesus did not identify the rich man and Lazarus story as a parable.
• Jesus did not explain the story to the disciples later, as He did some parables..
• Parable is from the Gk "parabolos" which means "para"-beside, "bolos"- to throw/place.
• All genuine parables Jesus explained something spiritual which was unknown or misunderstood by something that was known e.g. "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:" Matthew 13:24
• The story does not fit the format of a parable. There is no earthly situation to which an unknown or misunderstood spiritual truth is compared.

 

[Anto9us]

Lazarus of Bethany and Lazarus the beggar in the parable -- no same-same dude

 

[dqhall]

Jesus didn't describe the rich man doing anything unrighteous according to the Law.

But He did indicate the rich man receiving the consequences of unrighteousness.

In Deuteronomy 15 Israel was asked to cancel debts every seven years. They were to lend to the needy and give generously.

In Deuteronomy 26 there was a tithe for the poor required two years out of seven.

In the New Testament there are numerous passages emphasizing giving alms to the poor. A person was not supposed to sound a trumpet when giving alms. Jesus said “when you give alms,” not, “if you give alms.” Matthew 6:2-4

 

[JackRT]

It was another dig at the Pharisees. They had knowledge of the "way" and rather than sharing God's love with people, they used it for power and control, not only ignoring the weak and the poor, but adding greater suffering to their lives.

Over the centuries and going right back to the New Testament itself, the Pharisees have been viewed very negatively. In my opinion most of this negativity is quite undeserved.

At the time of Jesus the Pharisees were the most liberal and progressive aspect of Judaism. They were in several 'schools' or ‘bets’ --- the most progressive was Bet Hillel, which was in a minority position at the time of Jesus. The dominant group was the more conservative Bet Shammai. Towards the end of the first century following the destruction of the temple, Bet Hillel moved into the dominant role. Modern rabbinical Judaism traces its roots to the Pharisee movement.

Being a rabbi, Jesus was also a Pharisee and it seems most likely that Jesus was of Bet Hillel. To suggest that the scribes and Pharisees were in bed with the high priest and his little group is to betray a lack of understanding of Judaism at that time. The high priest, a Sadducee, was the most hated man in Judaism for the simple reason that he was regarded as a Roman 'quisling' --- he was after all personally appointed by the procurator himself and answered to him. The high priest did chair the Sanhedrin but did not control it. It was, in fact, controlled by the Pharisees who opposed the high priest at nearly every turn.

The Pharisees themselves became a major movement within Judaism in the centuries just prior to Jesus. They regarded their role as an effort to make the Law a possession of all the people not just the priesthood and the ruling elite. To this end they established synagogues in the cities, towns and villages. That is to say, they invented the 'community church' and most Christian churches today follow the same order of service established by the Pharisees --- several scripture readings interspersed with prayer and hymns and of course a sermon usually based on one of the readings. They also established schools attached to the synagogues to encourage literacy even amongst the common people. At the time of Jesus they as a group were certainly were not the hypocrites that the gospels portray them as. It is also very probably true that there were individual Pharisees who were over-zealous hypocrites.

In addition, they were able to successfully introduce legal measures to mitigate the harsher aspects of Torah law. This had the effect of virtually eliminating legal executions by stoning for offences like blasphemy, adultery, rebellious youths and the like. In those few executions that did take place, they ensured that the victim was rendered dead or unconscious by the first stone.

Scripture portrays a degree of hostility between the Pharisees and Jesus and his followers. It is doubtful that this was the actual case at the time of Jesus. I suspect that the majority of Pharisees would have been both curious about and friendly toward Jesus. In Acts 5:33-42 Luke portrays Peter and the apostles arrested and taken for trial before the Sanhedrin. Note that earlier in this same chapter it was the Sadducees not the Pharisees who were demanding that the apostles be imprisoned. It was Rabbi Gamaliel, a Pharisee, who successfully defended them before the Sanhedrin. Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel mentioned earlier. Scripture even notes that Saul/Paul studied under Gamaliel.

About forty years following the execution of Jesus, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the temple and with it they also destroyed the high priesthood. In the years following, the leadership of Judaism did devolve upon the Pharisees and we see rabbinic Judaism becoming dominant. Like all peoples threatened with cultural extinction, Judaism turned inward --- they circled the wagons and became very suspicious of any threat both internal and external. This is a fundamentalist knee jerk reaction --- we see something similar going on in the Islamic world today and also in the Christian right in certain parts of the USA.

This was the climate in which the gospels were written. By this time it was becoming increasingly apparent that the early Christian church was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisee rabbis and there was a good deal of bitterness on the part of both parties. This explains the animosity toward the Pharisees. Let us then temper our attitudes and ‘Pharisee rhetoric’ because we now realize, for the most part, that they have been portrayed quite unfairly in the gospels.
******
You might be interested to know that at the time of Jesus the Pharisees were divided into several schools or 'Bets'. The majority were in the very rigid and conservative Bet Shammai. The most important of the minority schools was Bet Hillel. They were actually quite liberal and progressive. Recall that Rabbi Gamaliel was a student of Rabbi Hillel and that Paul claimed to have been a student of Gamaliel. Gamaliel also successfully defended Peter and some of the apostles before the Sanhedrin. The teachings of Bet Hillel would have been very familiar to Jesus because he used some of them himself along with using the parable as an effective teaching tool. By the way, to be a Rabbi was automatically to be a Pharisee. At the time of Jesus they are estimated to have numbered only about 6000 out of the estimated total world population of 10 million Jews. I suspect that Rabbi Yeshua bar Miriam (Jesus) was of Bet Hillel. Perhaps the negative press received by the Pharisees in the bible is partly due to the fact the Bet Shammai was the dominant school. Incidentally Bet Hillel did move into the dominant role late in the 1st century and became what we know today as Rabbinic Judaism. Following the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 the Pharisees replaced the high priesthood as the dominant authority in Judaism. It was at the same time becoming obvious that Christianity was losing the battle for the heart and soul of Judaism to the Pharisees. I suspect there was a certain amount of bitterness about this in the Christian community. Since this was happening at the very time the canonical gospels were being written, it should come as no surprise that our gospels reflect a certain amount of anti Pharisee and indeed anti Judaic bias.

 

[truefiction1]

Abraham tells the rich man that there is a "great gulf" affixed between him and themselves, which was impossible to cross. That gulf is death, which permanently "affixes" a person within the spiritual state, or orientation, that they brought themselves to by their own choices during their lifetimes upon earth. It is a warning for us to make the right choices now, while we still can.

 

[RDKirk]

In Deuteronomy 15 Israel was asked to cancel debts every seven years. They were to lend to the needy and give generously.

In Deuteronomy 26 there was a tithe for the poor required two years out of seven.

In the New Testament there are numerous passages emphasizing giving alms to the poor. A person was not supposed to sound a trumpet when giving alms. Jesus said “when you give alms,” not, “if you give alms.” Matthew 6:2-4

Jesus did not say that the rich man did not release debts every seven years. Nor did Jesus say the rich man did not give alms.

Jesus' audience was working from a different set of presumptions from those of us who were raised with this story.

Again, the audience of Jesus' day would have presumed that because the man was wealthy, he must have been doing all that the Law required.

At the opening description of both men, Jesus' audience would not have had our automatic presumption that the rich man was greedy. We have that automatic presumption only because it has been taught to us that way in all kinds of media since childhood.

Wealth did not have automatic negative connotations for Jesus' audience. Jesus' audience would have only begun to suspect that their presumptions were somehow mistaken when Jesus ended with the rich man suffering the torment of the unrighteous and the poor man enjoying the rest of the righteous.

 

[dqhall]

Jesus did not say that the rich man did not release debts every seven years. Nor did Jesus say the rich man did not give alms.

Jesus' audience was working from a different set of presumptions from those of us who were raised with this story.

Again, the audience of Jesus' day would have presumed that because the man was wealthy, he must have been doing all that the Law required.

The story was such that the man was getting no relief from his suffering. I presumed it was because he had not helped Lazarus with even a chunk of bread dipped in olive oil or a piece of fish. Others will assume diffetently.

 

[RDKirk]

The story was such that the man was getting no relief from his suffering. I presumed it was because he had not helped Lazarus with even a chunk of bread dipped in olive oil or a piece of fish. Others will assume diffetently.

Given the fact that all of us in the West have been raised on stories of stingy, greedy rich people, I suspect that such presumptions are a matter of our socialization.

As I said, Jesus' audience would not have had the same presumption.

Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" -- Matthew 19

The presumption of Jesus' audience was that a rich man was rich because he was righteous.

 

[FireDragon76]

Jesus didn't describe the rich man doing anything unrighteous according to the Law.

But He did indicate the rich man receiving the consequences of unrighteousness.

At the end of the parable, however, Abraham tells the rich man that his relatives have the Law and the Prophets to warn them, which does imply that the scriptures have something to say about the rich man's behavior.

 

[Anto9us]

I think this is the punch line:

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.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Why do you think God shared the story of the rich man and Lazarus?

Luke 16:19-31 King James Version (KJV)
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

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.

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;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

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.

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.

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.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

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.

It is a true story with various different messages. It's primary message is about a person dying and going to hell because he did not help the poor as a part of God's Kingdom (i.e. to love your neighbor - see the Parable of the Good Samaritan). Lazarus (the poor man) suffered outside the rich man's gates and because he suffered (Which is a parallel of how we Christians are to suffer or be persecuted for Christ), he (we) shall be comforted in the afterlife. Whereas, those who take their ease in life and do not love others (like the rich man refusing to help the poor by loving him, i.e. the sinner who lives for himself and the pleasure of his sin), will be tormented in hell until the judgment.

Side Note:

I do not believe the rich man was tormented by being inside any actual flames but he was tormented by the heat of the flames nearby him or in the great gulf between him and Abraham. If the rich man was tormented in actual flame of some kind, it was not like the flames here on Earth that can burn your skin to such a degree to cause excruciating pain to such a point that it would make you scream uncontrollably. For the rich man was talking normally with Abraham and he was not acting as if he was in like a real fire here on this Earth. I also do not think the wicked in hell are conscious the whole time down there, either. I believe they go through long periods of sleep and are awaked during special moments or occasions. Why? Because God is into fair justice.

 

[RDKirk]

At the end of the parable, however, Abraham tells the rich man that his relatives have the Law and the Prophets to warn them, which does imply that the scriptures have something to say about the rich man's behavior.

Not that the audience yet grasped it, because the most scholarly among them hadn't grasped it:

But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. -- Mathew 23

Nobody got it at the time, and it certainly was not a presumption of that audience.

I'm not saying we can't get that from the story--we have the benefit of the entire New Testament and 2000 years of hindsight.

I'm saying that Jesus' audience at the time didn't get it.

 

[Anto9us]

There is a tradition that the rich man's name was 'Divas' - I don't know where this comes from...

Is it a Parable? It starts out exactly like Good Samaritan : "a certain man..." did this or that

Does it really matter if Good Samaritan, rich man and beggar Lazarus were real guys or not?

 

[RDKirk]

There is a tradition that the rich man's name was 'Divas' - I don't know where this comes from...

Is it a Parable? It starts out exactly like Good Samaritan : "a certain man..." did this or that

Does it really matter if Good Samaritan, rich man and beggar Lazarus were real guys or not?

No, it doesn't.

 

[FireDragon76]

Not that the audience yet grasped it, because the most scholarly among them hadn't grasped it:

But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. -- Mathew 23

Nobody got it at the time, and it certainly was not a presumption of that audience.

I'm not saying we can't get that from the story--we have the benefit of the entire New Testament and 2000 years of hindsight.

I'm saying that Jesus' audience at the time didn't get it.

God's Word is obviously easily mangled, as the current situation of religion in the US proves to me each day, and this situation hasn't changed in 2,000 years appreciably.

 

[~Zao~]

• Jesus did not identify the rich man and Lazarus story as a parable.
• Jesus did not explain the story to the disciples later, as He did some parables..
• Parable is from the Gk "parabolos" which means "para"-beside, "bolos"- to throw/place.
• All genuine parables Jesus explained something spiritual which was unknown or misunderstood by something that was known e.g. "The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:" Matthew 13:24
• The story does not fit the format of a parable. There is no earthly situation to which an unknown or misunderstood spiritual truth is compared.

|:

 

[JackRT]

The presumption of Jesus' audience was that a rich man was rich because he was righteous.

That was the official "party line" but I think the people were not so naïve.

 

[RDKirk]

That was the official "party line" but I think the people were not so naïve.

That's still a pertinacious thread through Western Christianity today. It's most obvious in the "prosperity gospel," but the concept of "you're poor because you're bad" runs deep among American Christians.

 

[RaymondG]

Why do you think God shared the story of the rich man and Lazarus?

Luke 16:19-31 King James Version (KJV)
19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

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.

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;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

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.

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.

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.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

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.

He shared the story for me to read and, within it, discover the way to life...... you see, I am the rich man, and I am Lazarus.... The story explains how to more from death to Life, and tells me which state I am currently in.................

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's amazing to me how people think this story is a parable. It has none of the marks of a traditional parable. A parable is like a real world example with no mention of specific people's names and stuff and with it sometimes being called a parable and with it sometimes having some kind of Proverbial saying(s) attached to it. If you were to just read and believe the words plainly, it sounds like an actual real story that took place.

I think some folks are disturbed by the existence of a hell, or they cannot accept the things within the story as being true, and so they right it off as a parable without actually looking at the text to see if is a parable or not.

But do not disturbed by this story being a literal story, my friends.
I believe the story allows for the view or interpretation that the rich man was tormented by the heat of the flame nearby him and or by flames possibly being within the great gulf between him and Abraham. Now, if the rich man was in actual flames, this is NOT an Earthly flame because if he was in an Earthly flame, he would be screaming so bad he would not be able to carry on a normal conversation with Abraham. So the flame would have to be in such a way that would be more like a mirage or a light mist of water that is very minor that did not cause him that much pain because we read about how the rich man was carrying on a normal conversation with Abraham.