Rich Man and Lazarus most misunderstood parable in NT?

[LittleLambofJesus]

LittleLambofJesus said: ↑
While translating this parable some years back, I came across a greek word #1276 in vs 26 that really stuck out at me as symbolizing "sail over".
If you look at the instances where this word is used, it always denotes crossing over water in a boat.
Pretty interesting:

Genesis 1:1 (NKJV)
Strong's Number G1276 matches the Greek διαπεράω (diaperaō), which occurs 6 times in 6 verses in the Greek concordance
to pass over, cross over, i.e. a river, a lake

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)

wow that is interesting. I wonder if we could cross if we had a cross.

I just now remembered where I saw "ferrying" used in Luke 16:26.
I use this interlinear to help translate a lot of my greek studies......

Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software
click on image to enlarge it......

 

[Dartman]

Instead, the real understanding we need from this story is that we must not ignore our needy brothers and sisters nearby to us that we may encounter...

That's very close, and is a very important concept to grasp. The failure of Israel, in rejecting Jesus, and therefore rejecting the one who sent him, was a bit more complicated than your statement, but your point is certainly an ingredient.

 

[TheSeabass]

Quite the contrary, stopping with the simplistic will rob one of the truth. Jesus criticized the Jewish leadership for their squandering of God's treasure, their depriving the common people of the truth.
Scripture please?
If you have none, (and we both know you don't), it's pure conjecture.

You're reading far more into than what is there in the lesson of being good stewards with the things of God. The chapter begins with Christ teaching His disciples this lesson and when the Pharisees come and ridicule this teaching on good stewards Jesus tells them the fate of the bad steward. Very simple, nothing more extravagant than that.


If Lazarus did not really exist, then what sense does it make to use a specific name? None. As far as I am concerned, Jesus would be lying or telling a fairy tale if Lazarus did not really exist. I know of no parable Jesus taught were actual names were used.
Yet in the end, it does not matter to me if it really happened or just was a parable for the fact remains it teaches eternal torment. Generally those that reject the bible's teaching on eternal torment want it to be a parable thinking they can get rid of all that is said about eternal torment in the text. Therefore their theological BIAS makes them want it to be a parable rather than real for it being real refutes their bias.

 

[Noxot]

I googled "lazarus meaning"


en.wikipedia.org
The name Lazarus is a Greek baby name. In Greek the meaning of the name Lazarus is: God is my help. In the Bible, Lazarus was brother to Mary and Martha and was raised from the dead after four days.

it is useful to know the meaning of names. "God is my help" is quite significant and the Lord knows how to order all things well.

 

[Dartman]

You're reading far more into than what is there in the lesson of being good stewards with the things of God. The chapter begins with Christ teaching His disciples this lesson and when the Pharisees come and ridicule this teaching on good stewards Jesus tells them the fate of the bad steward. Very simple, nothing more extravagant than that.

Jesus wasn't really talking about money;
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

What were the Pharisee's teaching about divorce, and remarriage?

If Lazarus did not really exist, then what sense does it make to use a specific name? None. As far as I am concerned, Jesus would be lying or telling a fairy tale if Lazarus did not really exist. I know of no parable Jesus taught were actual names were used.
Yet in the end, it does not matter to me if it really happened or just was a parable for the fact remains it teaches eternal torment.

That's not the point of the parable at all.

28 For I have five brethren (the 10 Tribes); 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.

 

[TheSeabass]

Jesus wasn't really talking about money;
16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

What were the Pharisee's teaching about divorce, and remarriage?

Jesus is saying man cannot force his way press his way into heaven, it must be done on God's terms. The reference about divorce is Jesus' way of telling the Pharisees they were not keeping God's law.

That's not the point of the parable at all.

28 For I have five brethren (the 10 Tribes); 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.

Luke 16:11-13 is the gist of His lesson. Verse 19-31 is the consequence of those that are not faithful stewards of God's things.

 

[Kit Sigmon]

Here's what I've got...
The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a condemnation of a hypocritical religious leader's(Pharisee/Judah) affluence and unwillingness to follow the truth of the Scriptures
as he should.
The Pharisee commits spiritual adultery by turning from the ways of God and His Word
to satisfy his fleshly desires and takes pride in his blessings.

The religious leader/Pharisee/Judah pursues and teaches the customs/traditions...
PRIESTLY CODE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Pharisee...Perushim(hebrew), it means separatist..."one who separates himself",
or keeps away from persons or things impure, in order to attain the degree of
holiness and righteousness required in those who would commune with God...
PHARISEES - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Lazarus represents Gentiles...whom the Pharisee dubbed as "common" and "untouchable"
not deserving of God's Word...also they referred to gentiles as "dogs"...
Spiritual Crumbs (Forerunner Commentary)

Also... the meaning of the name Lazarus, this Greek name is a form of the
Hebrew Eleazer, and it means "he whom God helps", God has helped
or who God aids: Genesis 1:1 (KJV)

Bread/crumbs represents spiritual food/ God's Word.

Jews Broken off/Gentiles Grafted in...
Lazarus is comforted. The rich man(broken off) doesn't debate why he
is where he is and enduring harsh treatment/punishment...he wants to be
comforted...he wants a drop of water...God's Word/spiritual refreshment...
but can't get it.
He ain't liking being broken off/cast off...he wants God's blessings and favor again.
Lazarus is being comforted/aided by God[FatherAbraham].

The rich man and Lazarus both are in hades...one be tormented and the other is
comforted.

The house of Judah would be cut off and the gentiles would be able come into
the family of God during this current age because of the "bread crumbs" that fell to
them from the master's table... those Gentiles who in faith would accept the Messiah.


torment in the flame...
The word rendered "torment" is a form of the Greek verb odunao, which means "grief," "pain," or "suffering."
Here it conveys mental anguish, not physical pain.
Forms of this word are found only four times in the Scriptures, all in the writings of Luke.
It appears twice in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in verses 24 and 25.
In Luke 2:48, it is used to describe the anxious distress that Mary and Joseph felt after
they discovered the 12-year old Jesus missing on the trip home from Jerusalem after
the Passover feast.
In Acts 20:38, it depicts the sorrow the elders of the Ephesian Church felt
at Paul's farewell announcement that they would never see him again.

this place of torment... basanou...place of harsh testing, punishment.

the flame...is suffering the jews have had to endure due to rejecting Jesus
as their Messiah.

The chasm or guff between them is caused by the jews rejecting Jesus...God has
blinded them...put a veil over their eyes...2 Corinthians 3:14-16.

The rich man has 5 brothers....(symbolic) Judah and his 5 brothers’ mission was to be a light to the nations (Gentiles)...they didn't do that. They were to share with other nations what God had entrusted to them and not selfishly hoard God's Word.
(Jacob first married Leah and had five sons...honor/privileges traditionally go to first wife and children.) We also know that the Lord can also raise up and lower whomever etc.

hear Moses and the Prophets...
the rich man says they won't believe them but if you send Lazarus back to tell my brothers...Abraham answers and plainly tells him that anyone who rejects God's Word about the Messiah will also refuse to acknowledge the evidence of a miraculous resurrection. The Pharisees/religious leaders have God's Word, heard it, saw Jesus
do miracles and they rejected him and the miracles...similar to what Father Abraham
said in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
Those religious leaders/Pharisees understood the parable and they began plotting how to
foil his ministry and then how to put Jesus to death.
They too would receive what they had coming to them since they wouldn't not repent.

Bible scripture read/studied:
Genesis 49:10
Exodus 19:6
Hosea 4:6
Chapter 49 of Isaiah
Ephesians 2:12
Luke 16:13-17
Psalm 69:22
Romans 3:1-2
Luke 10:25-37
Matthew 15:21-28
Matthew 4:4
Mark 7:6-9

 

[dqhall]

This is a spinoff from another thread that is closed:
Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

Why do some commentators view the Rich Man and Lazarus parable of Luke 16 as of the most misunderstood parables in NT?
If I am understanding this correctly, it appears it is more of a covenantle story between the OC[Moses] and NC[Jesus]

LUKE 16:26 " 'And besides all this, between us[NC Jesus/Spirit?] and ye[OC/Moses/Carnal?] there is a great gulf fixed,
so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.' "
LUKE 16:29 "Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets;
let them hear them.' "

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

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity. Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Yeshua told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell. Yet a thorough, unbiased examination of this story will show that the generally accepted interpretations of this passage of Scripture are erroneous and misleading. In this article, we will go through the parable verse by verse to determine what the Messiah was truly teaching..............................

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. They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage. Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who he was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!

CONCLUSION
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man, long used by mainstream Christian ministers to teach the "reality of hell," really has nothing to say about punishment or reward in the afterlife. Yeshua used this story, which fit the common misconception about life after death in his day, to show the fate that awaited the Jewish nation because of the unbelief and faithlessness which caused them to reject him as the Messiah.............

Kindgdom Bible Studies Template Page

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is without doubt one of the most misunderstood of all the stories in the Bible. Is it a parable, or an actual statement of facts concerning life beyond the grave? It is strenuously denied by most evangelists that this story, as told by Christ, could be a parable. They hold that this is not a parable because it starts out in narrative form. It is argued, because it reads, “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day,” that Christ is speaking here of an actual incident that took place. But in the parable of the prodigal son, in the fifteenth chapter of Luke, the narrative introduction is found also, for it says, “A certain man had two sons...”

THE RICH MAN

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is without question one of the least understood of all the teachings of our Lord. What is its aim? It is a similitude of something; for all the parables are similitudes,..................

Observe the particulars respecting the rich man. He was one of Abraham’s seed, one who even in hell could not forget his election, but still cried, “Father! Abraham.” He was “clothed in purple and fine linen, “the raiment of the Kingdom, and, as a child of the Kingdom, he “fared sumptuously every day.” Who is this man? The rich man in this parable represents the Jewish nation, the house of Judah,
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.

.................................................

There may have been more than one Lazarus. There were several women named Mary in the Gospels. Mary may be a short form of the name Miriam.

The story about the rich man and Lazarus serves as a warning to those who indulge themselves in luxury, while not sparing as much as a crumb to help a hungry beggar.

 

[Der Alte]

All of the native Greek speaking early church fathers who quoted or referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual.

• Irenaeus Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.
Ireneaeus, [120-202 AD], was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position , and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table.
ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
• Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1
On the Resurrection.
This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
• Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.]
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality . For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
• Tertullian Part First [A.D. 145-220.]
9. A Treatise On The Soul Chapter 57
Moreover, the fact that Hades is not in any case opened for (the escape of) any soul , has been firmly established by the Lord in the person of Abraham, in His representation of the poor man at rest and the rich man in torment.
• The Epistles Of Cyprian [A.D. 200-258] Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
• Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah [A.D. 260-312]
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence. ​

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe the Bible teaches "Dualistic Conditional Immortality."

This is the view as taught in the Bible that says that "hell" is a very real and literal place; But the wicked will perish (i.e. be erased from existence) in the Lake of Fire (After the Judgment).

As for a literal "hell": Well, I just do not believe there is any Scripture saying that the wicked will burn down there for thousands of years. Yes, the story of Lazarus and the Rich-man appears to suggest he was in the flame, but he also could have been referring to the heat of the flame in front of him (either nearby or in the great gulf between him and Abraham). In other words, when the rich-man said "I am tormented in this flame" (Luke 16:24) it would sort of be like if I said "I am tormented in this soldier." (referring to the flatulence from the soldier in front of me). For the first appearance of the English word "this" is used by Adam to refer to Eve who was in front of him (Genesis 2:23). Need another analogy and or another verse? Okay. Well, "in this" in Luke 16:24 is sort of like if I said I am happy in this car --- yet the car is in front of me. Similar language like this can be found with the words "in these" in Isaiah 57:6. Granted, I am not discounting the idea that the rich-man was burning in the actual flame itself, but I do not believe he was burning down there for thousands of years consciously being aware of that fact because God is fair and just in His Judgments.

47 "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."
(Luke 12:47-48).

Sir Arhur Conan Doyle once said,
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

Side Note:

Also, if the Rich-man really was engulfed in flames, then how was he able to carry on a normal conversation with Abraham? For today, if a man was tied to a log and then lowered into a roaring camp fire, he would be too busy screaming over his pain so as to carry on a normal conversation with anyone. For if the Rich-man was able to hear Abraham over his own screams of pain, he would be asking Abraham for tons of buckets of water and not a few drops to cool his tongue.

As for the Lake of Fire being a place of annihialation:

Jesus said, "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28). While I am not claiming to be an expert on Greek, scholars have said that the word "hell" here is taken from the Greek word "geenna" which is a reference to the Lake of Fire.

If that is the case, the point here is that Jesus can destroy both body AND THE SOUL (of a person) in the Lake of Fire. For Jesus destroying the soul and body is related to man destroying or killing the physical body here on this Earth. Are you saying that men do not fear physical death? Jesus is telling us not to fear the one who can destroy our physical body because if we trust in Him, we will never techincally die (i.e. Face the second death, i.e. the Lake of Fire); but we will have everlasting LIFE. In fact, the Lake of Fire is called the "Second Death" because it relates to the "First Death."

Anyways, Jesus is saying we should really fear Him because He has the true power of ending life or not. For if a believer's body dies, they will one day be resurrected and live with Jesus on the Eternal New Earth.


...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

All of the native Greek speaking early church fathers who quoted or referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it to be factual.............

If the ECFs told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/who-really-cares-what-the-ecfs-had-to-say.6730673/

simonthezealot said: ↑
Their theology was wrong in many areas, there were many different interpretations of the same scriptures and in many cases they had next to NO access to bounce their ideas off of other great theological minds...So what gives? why the heavy leanings for understanding?
Essentially the scriptures they used and the ones we use have remained unchanged, less some poor translations. It does not seem plausible to hang ones salvation on an early 3rds or 4th century interpretation of the same scripture we have NOW.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/did-the-ecfs-really-know-understand-the-scriptures-better.7263824/

Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?
This poster stated that the ECF's knew the scriptures far better than we do today.
So I would like to ask if this is true and if their interpretations of the Scriptures could have been faulty, perhaps because of bad translations or because of some of them not being well versed in the Hebrew/Greek of the Bible to determine correct interpretations.
So the question is, did they or didn't they understand/know the Scriptures as well as later Christians all the way up to today, know/understand the Scriptures.

 

[Anguspure]

Christ would not teach falsehoods about eternal punishment. Even if it could be proven this is a parable, a parable is "confined to that which is real. Its imagery always embodies a narrative which is true to the facts and experiences of human life” (Terry, M. S. 1890. Hermeneutics. New York, NY: Eaton & Mains.) Are the Dead Conscious?

Christ shows there is a continued existence of both good and bad, consciousness of both, a permanent fixed gulf with no end and no crossing over.

Nevertheless the parable does not teach eternal conscious torment. It presents a scene where a person has realised his fate and cries out to save his brothers from the same fate, before he faces his eternal destruction.

 

[Karl.C]

Why do some commentators view the Rich Man and Lazarus parable of Luke 16 as of the most misunderstood parables in NT?

Have a read of Luke 17:1 "Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!" this immediately follows the parody of the RM&L. Also note that Luke 16:19-31 is immediately preceded by "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (vs 18) Another of the unlawful teachings of the Temple elite. ie: vs17 "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail".

So what is unlawful in the parody of RM&L. For a start: the Jews put Abraham above God! (cp. John 18).

I use the word parody to describe the tale but that is what it is. Though he was addressing the Pharisees he was speaking about the Sadducees ("neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" vs31). Also the description of the Rich Man = his dress, father & five brothers fits Anas' family (the ruling high priest in Jesus time according to A.John). It is worth noting that all of Anas' sons became high priest at one time or another. It is also worth noting that Talmud accurses Anas & his Family for their profiteering & corruption of the Temple!

Two last points: note that Lazarus is totally inactive in the tale, secure in the bosum of Abraham (the Jewish idea of Paradise). Also note that the Rich Man is tormented by a single flame!

 

[Karl.C]

In parables people don't have names . It's actually even which happend and Jesus is telling you about it , and this man is still burning 2000 years later and will be burning forever...

For now, several things:

1. The Rich man who is the central character in the tale is never named. And Lazarus (more likely Jesus speaking Aramaic not Greek would have used its Hebrew equivalent Elʿāzār which means "God has helped" which fits the tale) was a common name in Jesus time, so there is no identification of him.

2. Once Lazarus is carried off to hades/sheol/hell, and in the bosum of Abraham he has total inactivity in the tale.

3. The Rich Man is tormented by a single flame.

4. Lazarus' totally inactivity in the tale fits the OT scriptural concept of the righteous dead in sheol.

5. Jewish tradition in Jesus' time was that the unrighteous would undergo a period of purgation - maximum of 12 months then be thrust into the river/lake of fire (Gehennah) to be obliterated from memory.

 

[Der Alte]

If the ECFs told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/who-really-cares-what-the-ecfs-had-to-say.6730673/
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/did-the-ecfs-really-know-understand-the-scriptures-better.7263824/

If Simonthezealot told you to jump off a cliff would you? You quoted him as being authoritative. What makes you think that he or you are more knowledgeable than the ECF? Let us remember that many of them were persecuted and tortured for their faith. Why would they hold on to "false" beliefs at the risk of torture or even death? So rather than blowing them off as wrong, how about proving it?
.....One of those ECF, Justin, was posthumously named "Martyr" because he was martyred for his faith. Another one, Polycarp, was a student of John, he was threatened with being burned to death at the stake if he did not denounce Jesus and worship Caesar. He said "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?” So they burned him at the stake. Things like that make me more inclined to believe the native Greek speaking ECF than anonymous folks on this forum who could not parse a Greek verb if their life depended on it.

 

[TheSeabass]

Nevertheless the parable does not teach eternal conscious torment. It presents a scene where a person has realised his fate and cries out to save his brothers from the same fate, before he faces his eternal destruction.

It either teaches eternal torment or Christ was speaking in fairy tale language, i.e., He was lying. What Christ says about the rich man fits perfectly with all the other verses in the NT that teach eternal torment, unquenchable fire, etc.

 

[Der Alte]

For now, several things:
1. The Rich man who is the central character in the tale is never named. And Lazarus (more likely Jesus speaking Aramaic not Greek would have used its Hebrew equivalent Elʿāzār which means "God has helped" which fits the tale) was a common name in Jesus time, so there is no identification of him.
2. Once Lazarus is carried off to hades/sheol/hell, and in the bosum of Abraham he has total inactivity in the tale.
3. The Rich Man is tormented by a single flame.
4. Lazaeus' totally inactivity in the tale fits the OT scriptural concept of the righteous dead in sheol.
5. Jewish tradition in Jesus' time was that the unrighteous would undergo a period of purgation - maximum of 12 months then be thrust into the river/lake of fire (Gehennah) to be obliterated from memory.

Google "Lazarus and the rich man" you will see a bunch of theories what it "really means." Why is this theory better than any of the others?
.....What about Abraham? Jesus did not introduce the story of Lazarus and the rich man as a parable and He did not explain it later to His disciples. It is very possible that a beggar name Lazarus was thrown down at a rich mans gate sometime in history. If the entire story was anonymous then it could be a parable but the inclusion of a specific historical person, Abraham, precludes it being a parable. If Abraham was not in the place Jesus said and did not say the words Jesus quoted then Jesus lied.
.....You are partially right about what some Jews believed about hell. Now for the rest of the story.
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica and the Talmud, among the Jews in Israel before and during the time of Jesus was a belief in a place of everlasting torment of the wicked and they called it both sheol and gehinnom.
Disclaimer: There were different groups within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and there were different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. I am addressing only the belief stated above, Any other beliefs are not relevant to this response.

Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the son of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);​

Note, this is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any supposed bias of Christian translators.

(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell (B.M. 83b).
But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b). When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [ שׁאול /Sheol]] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b).
Link:Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-Rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; see *Moloch). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/gehinnom
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [follower of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]: "And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written [Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more. Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link:Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.​

When Jesus taught about,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24​

These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell, outlined above. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.​

Jesus is quoted as using the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell must have been correct.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

The traditional explanation that a burning rubbish heap in the Valley of Hinnom south of Jerusalem gave rise to the idea of a fiery Gehenna of judgment is attributed to Rabbi David Kimhi's commentary on Psalm 27:13 (ca. A.D. 1200). He maintained that in this loathsome valley fires were kept burning perpetually to consume the filth and cadavers thrown into it. However, Strack and Billerbeck state that there is neither archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud and Midrasch, 5 vols. [Munich: Beck, 1922-56], 4:2:1030). Also a more recent author holds a similar view (Lloyd R. Bailey, "Gehenna: The Topography of Hell," Biblical Archeologist 49 [1986]: 189.
Source, Bibliotheca Sacra / July–September 1992
Scharen: Gehenna in the Synoptics Pt. 1​

Note there is no “archaeological nor literary evidence in support of this claim, [that Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump] in either the earlier intertestamental or the later rabbinic sources” If Gehenna was ever used as a garbage dump there should be broken pottery, tools, utensils, bones, etc. but there is no such evidence.

“Gehenna is presented as diametrically opposed to ‘life’: it is better to enter life than to go to Gehenna. . .It is common practice, both in scholarly and less technical works, to associate the description of Gehenna with the supposedly contemporary garbage dump in the valley of Hinnom. This association often leads scholars to emphasize the destructive aspects of the judgment here depicted: fire burns until the object is completely consumed. Two particular problems may be noted in connection with this approach. First, there is no convincing evidence in the primary sources for the existence of a fiery rubbish dump in this location (in any case, a thorough investigation would be appreciated). Secondly, the significant background to this passage more probably lies in Jesus’ allusion to Isaiah 66:24.”
(“The Duration of Divine Judgment in the New Testament” in The Reader Must Understand edited by K. Brower and M. W. Ellion, p. 223, emphasis mine)
G. R. Beasley-Murray in Jesus and the Kingdom of God:
“Ge-Hinnom (Aramaic Ge-hinnam, hence the Greek Geenna), ‘The Valley of Hinnom,’ lay south of Jerusalem, immediately outside its walls. The notion, still referred to by some commentators, that the city’s rubbish was burned in this valley, has no further basis than a statement by the Jewish scholar Kimchi (sic) made about A.D. 1200; it is not attested in any ancient source.” (p. 376n.92)
The Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna is a myth - Archaeology, Biblical History & Textual Criticism ​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*...........

I use the word parody to describe the tale but that is what it is. Though he was addressing the Pharisees he was speaking about the Saducees ("neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" vs31).
Also the description of the Rich Man = his dress, father & five brothers fits Anas' family (the ruling high priest in Jesus time according to A.John). It is worth noting that all of Anas' sons became high priest at one time or another. It is also worth noting that Talmus accurses Anas & Failies for corrupting the Temple!

Two last points: note that Lazarus is totally inactive in the tale, secure in the bosum of Abraham (the Jewish idea of Paradise). Also note that the Rich Man is tormented by a single flame!

Excellent!!
Thank you for the enlightening post and for bringing up the Sadducees and high Priesthood.

Though Jesus railed against both groups, according to Acts 23, the Pharisees actually defended Paul! Wow!
So yes, I can see why the Sadducees, including the High Priest, could be representing the Rich Man, as the High Priesthood was part of the House of Judah. [Judah, Levi and Benjamin]

Matt 26:64 Jesus Is saying to him "thou say, moreover I am saying to ye, from present/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".
[Jeremiah 4:13Reve 1:7/6:16]

Acts 23:
2 At this, the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near Paul to strike him on the mouth.
3 Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall!
You sit here to judge me according to the Law, yet you yourself violate the law by commanding that I be struck.”…

I use the word parody to describe the tale but that is what it is. Though he was addressing the Pharisees he was speaking about the Saducees ("neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" vs31).

I actually have a thread on the Sadducees here:

Why did Sadducees not believe in Resurrection? Acts 23:8
Why did Sadducees not believe in Resurrection? Acts 23:8

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 23:7 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.
9 Then there arose a loud outcry.
And the scribes of the Pharisees' party arose and protested, saying, "We find no evil in this man; but if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him, let us not fight against God."

3. The Sadducees

Being closely associated with the Temple, the Sadducees disappeared from history when the Temple was destroyed in 70.

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD

The Temple now presented little more than a heap of ruins;.........

 

[aiki]

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man has been the foundation for many of the erroneous beliefs about "hell" within traditional Christianity. Some have viewed it not as a parable, but as a true story Yeshua told to give details about the punishment of sinners in hell.

Because this is exactly what it does. The parable gives details, real, factual data, about the punishment of sinners in hell. The parable may have a cultural-religious subtext, too, but the real facts about hell and the cultural-religious subtext don't have to be mutually-exclusive of one another. Why can't the parable communicate truth on both levels? It seems to me it is perfectly able to do both, hence the varying ideas about the parables' meaning.

While the significance of this seemingly pointless detail has been neglected by scholars throughout the centuries,

Oh, ugh. Whenever I hear this sort of thing, I start to tune out. "I'm among the rare few who have ever understood this, blah, blah, blah," is a sure sign what comes next is totally out of left field in some way.

Yeshua wanted those self-righteous Pharisees to know exactly who he was referring to with this parable. This detail cements the identity of the rich man as the House of Judah, the Jews!

Okay. And he could be just a representative of sinners, too. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't the Rich Man be representative of both?

CONCLUSION
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man, long used by mainstream Christian ministers to teach the "reality of hell," really has nothing to say about punishment or reward in the afterlife.

Baloney. Total baloney. If one wants to see this layer addressing Jewish pride, fine, but doing so does not negate a more straightforward, natural reading/understanding of the parable. It does not necessarily follow that because one can understand the parable in one way it cannot be understood in any other way. Sounds like the real agenda in the conclusion above isn't to properly understand the parable but to advance a particular perspective on hell.

Observe the particulars respecting the rich man. He was one of Abraham’s seed, one who even in hell could not forget his election, but still cried, “Father! Abraham.” He was “clothed in purple and fine linen, “the raiment of the Kingdom, and, as a child of the Kingdom, he “fared sumptuously every day.” Who is this man? The rich man in this parable represents the Jewish nation, the house of Judah,
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.

This is almost laughable in its specious reasoning. Again, there is a distinct non sequitur serving as the foundation of the above perspective:

Purple clothing and fine linen must symbolize royalty and priestly righteousness and thus can only represent the Rich Man's Jewishness.

Why can't the purple and fine linen be a symbol of wealth, too? We're talking about a Rich Man, right? Why wouldn't a rich man be wearing such clothing? Why must it be that the Rich Man's clothing can only represent his membership in the Jewish nation, the Chosen People of God? It seems to me that there is no good reason why his clothing could not be symbolic of his wealth and his pride and independence from God and/or his Jewish heritage, too.

Before anything else, the people to whom Jesus spoke the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man were sinners in desperate need of a Saviour. Jew or Gentile, rich or poor, all need salvation and the terrible fate of the Rich Man demonstrates why. This is what is plainly evident in a natural, straightforward reading of the parable.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

NP