Rich man and Lazarus story

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

Gospel: Luke 16:19-31
Is this a true story or a parable?
Does it mean rich and uncompassionate will go to hell?

 

[Davy]

Gospel: Luke 16:19-31
Is this a true story or a parable?
Does it mean rich and uncompassionate will go to hell?

Does it matter if it was just a story or that it really happened? Regardless, Lord Jesus would not lie to us about what happens at flesh death and where one's soul goes after flesh death.

Did Jesus lie to the malefactor crucified with Him that believed on Him, and Jesus said he would be with Him in Paradise that day? Was Jesus lying about Paradise too?

If you actually listen to those who are... saying Jesus was exaggerating in Luke 16, or just giving a parable and didn't really mean what He said there about Paradise and that great fixed gulf, etc., then who would you be believing, men that are basically calling Jesus a liar, or to Lord Jesus Himself as recorded in His Word by Apostle Luke?

Our Heavenly Father and His Son will allow His enemies to test His people to determine if we actually listen to Him in His Word. So why waste time with listening to every wind of doctrine devised by men?

 

[ozso]

There's all kinds of different views about it.

This lecture goes through it all well. Steve Gregg has been a well respected call in radio show bible answer man for decades.

 

[Davy]

Like I said, who should we listen to with what Lord Jesus taught about Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16? Should we trust Christ Jesus Himself, or trust in man?

 

[ozso]

Like I said, who should we listen to with what Lord Jesus taught about Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16? Should we trust Christ Jesus Himself, or trust in man?

Shouldn't we discuss scripture? A lot of times someone who's read the Bible numerous times, including a particular passage, suddenly sees something there that had been overlooked, and gains insight.

 

[Davy]

Shouldn't we discuss scripture? A lot of times someone who's read the Bible numerous times, including a particular passage, suddenly sees something there that had been overlooked, and gains insight.

Discussing Bible Scripture is one thing, but discounting it is another. And with someone who doesn't believe Scripture as written, then what concord do those in Christ have with Belial, like Apostle Paul said?

 

[ozso]

Discussing Bible Scripture is one thing, but discounting it is another. And with someone who doesn't believe Scripture as written, then what concord do those in Christ have with Belial, like Apostle Paul said?

Te OP isn't asking if hell is real. The question is, is Jesus saying rich people go to hell and poor people go to heaven? Or that you'll go to heaven if you help a poor person?

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

What is the logic that a beggar shall go to paradise and rich man to hades?
Does it mean it is better to be poor and suffering?
Isn't it salvation by Faith alone? Not your status of poor or welthy?

 

[Davy]

Te OP isn't asking if hell is real. The question is, is Jesus saying rich people go to hell and poor people go to heaven? Or that you'll go to heaven if you help a poor person?

Well, yes the OP is asking if those things Jesus showed in Luke 16 are real, and that includes those 2 places of separation where the rich man went and where the poor beggar Lazarus went.

I suggest the faithful Bible student remember to look up the meanings of names in God's Word also. The name Lazarus comes from Hebrew Eleazar, so who was Eleazar and what was his job? Eleazar was a priest descended from Aaron. So most likely, this Lazarus of Luke 16 represents a priest of God and was poor for that reason (ouch! that must hurt the false prosperity preachers out there!).

So does that mean all 'rich' people that believe on Jesus Christ are doomed? NO! of course not!

But for rich people that reject Christ Jesus and believe on the world instead, they indeed are... doomed will be joined with the wicked when Jesus returns.

 

[ozso]

Well, yes the OP is asking if those things Jesus showed in Luke 16 are real, and that includes those 2 places of separation where the rich man went and where the poor beggar Lazarus went.

I suggest the faithful Bible student remember to look up the meanings of names in God's Word also. The name Lazarus comes from Hebrew Eleazar, so who was Eleazar and what was his job? Eleazar was a priest descended from Aaron. So most likely, this Lazarus of Luke 16 represents a priest of God and was poor for that reason (ouch! that must hurt the false prosperity preachers out there!).

That was also the name of Abraham's servant who was set to inherit everything before Isaac was born. And some theorize that since he was from Damascus he might have been a gentile. So going with that theme there's Abraham and what was Israel's (rich man in fine linen) inheritance, being given to the gentiles (Eliezer of Damascus). I'm not saying that's correct, just relating a particular theory I've heard.

So does that mean all 'rich' people that believe on Jesus Christ are doomed? NO! of course not!

But for rich people that reject Christ Jesus and believe on the world instead, they indeed are... doomed will be joined with the wicked when Jesus returns.

Indeed.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Gospel: Luke 16:19-31
Is this a true story or a parable?

It's a true story: a prophetic story Jesus told as a condemnation of the covetous, corrupt high priests of Israel in His day. Even the Talmud had a curse for the greedy family of Annas in those days, calling them "the serpent's hiss", whose servants beat the people, and whose sons were keepers of the treasury.

The "rich man" is Caiaphas, a high priest who "fared sumptuously every day" on the finest of the people's first-fruits offerings, and dressed in "purple and fine linen" - the vestments of the high priest.

The rich man's "five brothers" were Caiaphas's five brothers-in-law, sons of their father Annas.

The rich man begging for Lazarus to be sent to "my father's house" was speaking of sending Lazarus to the temple where Caiaphas's father-in-law Annas had officiated as high priest. The "rich man" calls Abraham "father" in this story, because "the fathers" was a title which the Israelites gave specifically to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Abraham in this story likewise addresses the "rich man" as "Son", which would identify this "rich man" as an Israelite.

"Lazarus" in this story is the literal Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead. The "gate" of the "rich man" which Lazarus was laid beside was the temple gate. Whatever "sores" or illness that the real Lazarus died of in the book of John, it rendered him unclean and unable to enter the temple grounds, just like the "beggar" in the Luke 16 story.

The "rich man" (Caiaphas) died, and was buried. We have his ornate ossuary today, with the bones of a 60-ish man inside, along with some other family members' collected bones.
The "beggar" also died, but no mention of burial is made, possibly because Christ raised Lazarus out of the grave and he did not occupy it for more than 4 days.

The "torment" which the spirit of the dead Caiaphas was going to suffer I believe might have been that found in Luke 13:28. There would be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" when the unbelieving Jews (who had eaten and drunk with Christ, and heard Him teach in their streets) would see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God (and Caiaphas seeing the resurrected Lazarus in Abraham's bosom). On that occasion, these unbelieving ones would be "thrust out" of sharing that blessing. The first would be last and the last would be first, just like the "rich man" had his good things in this life, but Lazarus had his afterwards.

Christ on trial promised Caiaphas the high priest that "hereafter shall ye see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Matthew 26:64). I believe that view of the returning Christ was going to be the occasion when Jerusalem would become a "furnace of fire" or a "Lake of Fire"; the time when the wicked souls of the dead in Hades would be cast into the Lake of Fire for utter destruction. The soul of Caiaphas on that occasion would be seeing the resurrected Lazarus across the "great gulf fixed between" - aka, the deep Kidron Valley between the city of Jerusalem and the Mount of Olives where Jesus was prophesied to bodily return to gather all the resurrected saints.

Abraham in the story told the "rich man" that none of his "five brothers" would believe a warning about that place of torment, even if someone raised from the dead should deliver that warning. That high priest family already had Moses and the prophets, and were not following their messages, even though they were supposed to be the guardians of the law.

Even though the real Lazarus was going to be raised from the dead by Christ, the chief priests hated Christ so much that they still rejected the gospel message. Along with their plot to kill Christ, in John 12:10 they were even formulating plans to kill Lazarus again (not that this was even possible).

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

Interesting, but the Bible Gospel never mentioned Lazarus was a beggar before.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Interesting, but the Bible Gospel never mentioned Lazarus was a beggar before.

On this occasion, Christ was using "poetic license", in a manner of speaking. He was using two polar opposite examples of wealth and poverty in Israel (the "rich man" as Caiphas, the high priest of Israel, and the "poor man" Lazarus, who was used as a representative of the opposite end of the spectrum). Christ used both of these examples to drive home His point against the covetous Pharisees.

The Pharisees had just been deriding Christ for saying "Ye cannot serve God and mammon". Christ responded, "that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." No one in Israel had a higher rank than the high priesthood, but with their covetous hearts, they had become an "abomination" in God's eyes. Christ then proceeded to tell the story of the "rich man" (Caiphas) who had everything in the way of wealth, but a poverty-stricken soul in comparison to Lazarus.

I have a proposition for why the real Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead was called a "poor man", or a "beggar" in this story. The real Lazarus came from a wealthy family in Bethany, since that box of ointment which his sister Mary poured out on Christ was very costly. The real Lazarus "whom Jesus loved" I believe was the same as the rich young ruler who had "great possessions", but whom scripture says Jesus loved anyway, in spite of his initial reluctance to part with his position in the Sanhedrin and the wealth which accompanied it.

I believe after comparing NT scripture accounts that Lazarus whom Jesus loved / aka the "rich young ruler" whom Jesus loved eventually gave away his wealth after Christ had raised him from the dead. (Money is not a priority with resurrected individuals). The disciples did not think this was possible, but Christ told them that "with God all things are possible" for the rich young ruler to change his mind about his possessions.

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

Does it mean it is better to be poor than being rich?
But we can be rich and righteous at the same time, we can use money to help the poor.

 

[3 Resurrections]

Does it mean it is better to be poor than being rich?
But we can be rich and righteous at the same time, we can use money to help the poor.

The problem is not with the wealth itself. The problem is if we make that gift of wealth our master. Proverbs 10:22 tells us that "The blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich, and he addeth no sorrow with it." It all depends on how we respond to that blessing.

This story about Lazarus and the rich man was preceded by Luke 16:14-15. "And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And He said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."

The high priesthood in Israel at the time was well known for its greed. You remember, I'm sure, the cleansing of the temple when Christ accused the religious leadership of making the temple a "den of thieves". The money-changers were doing a brisk business for their masters, the high priesthood of the house of Annas. That corrupt practice was the requirement of collecting a fee every time any foreign currency was exchanged for the Tyrian shekel which the high priesthood demanded for every single purchase or sale of sacrificial items intended for temple worship. These profits were enormous for the high priesthood, and well earned Christ's rebuke for turning God's house of prayer into a "den of thieves".

 

[LayHong_Loves_Christ]

Same as today, some churches ask people to give tithe and even more than 10% of your income, they told you "the more you give the more God will reward you". And this make the Church rich and can pay high salary to her pastors.
Do they manipulate religion to earn money?