Rich-man and Lazarus True story or Parable

[LittleLambofJesus]

I am carrying these posts over from another thread that also turned into a discussion on this parable/story

http://www.christianforums.com/t7675584/
Eternal Fire SAVES not TORTURES (2)

Sure, a parable *can* have a name in it. But none of them do, because adding the name of a fictional character in a story wouldn't add anything beneficial to the story. We don't know what the prodigal son's name was, or his older brother's name. Why? Because the names are irrelevant to the story.

So, in the rich man and Lazarus, we do have names. Why? Because it's telling a historical account of something that really happened. In that case, names do matter.

Originally Posted by Timothew
But you just said a parable can have a name. But your evidence that this is not a parable is that it has a name. But you just said parables can have names.

Originally Posted by Leggomyegolas
Sure, a parable *can* have a name in it. But none of them do, because adding the name of a fictional character in a story wouldn't add anything beneficial to the story. We don't know what the prodigal son's name was, or his older brother's name. Why? Because the names are irrelevant to the story.

So, in the rich man and Lazarus, we do have names. Why? Because it's telling a historical account of something that really happened. In that case, names do matter.

Ok. I can hang with that.
Perhaps after Lazarus eventually died, he was actually carried away by Messengers to Abraham's bosom, where it shows both him and Abraham are alive

John 12:1 Then, six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany where Lazarus was who had been dead, whom He had raised from the dead.
10 But the chief priests plotted to put Lazarus to death also,
11 because on account of him many of the Jews went away and believed in Jesus.

LUKE 16:22 "So it was that the poor one died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom.
The rich man also died and was buried."

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

The next events recorded in this parable are the deaths of Lazarus and then the rich man. Since the parable has been figurative up until this point, there is no reason to assume it becomes literal now.

First, to prove that this language is symbolic and not meant to be taken literally, let's examine exactly what we are told by Yeshua. He says that first, Lazarus dies and is taken to the bosom of Abraham. Notice, there is no mention of his burial here. Then later the rich man dies, and he is buried (in Hades, according to verse 23). So the time sequence given indicates that upon his death, Lazarus was taken immediately to Abraham's bosom, while afterward the rich man was buried in Hades when he died.

If this story is literal, then we have a contradiction in the Bible. Here, Lazarus is shown to have immediately received the promise of eternal life. Yet the author of Hebrews clearly tells us that Abraham, as well as all the other Old Testament saints, have not yet received the promises given to them by God:

Originally Posted by he-man

You got it and it also says...
Joh 3:13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven,the Son of man.
​

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Awesome thought to contemplate. My hunch is that he was a sabbath keeper in the tradition of keeping sabbath's in that day. He dotted his "i's" and crossed his "t's", etc. He followed what was required to a tee.....yet, apparently his heart was amiss......*ponders on how that is possible*

It appears he is someone of royalty.
Tho this commentator says he is symbolizing the House of Judah, the Jews, it could also be symbolizing the OC Priesthood, such as a High Priest, Pharisee, Sadducee.

Remember, the Levitical priesthood joined with the tribes of Judah and Benjamin in the OT

Ezra 1:5 Then arose the ancestral chiefs of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites,--even every one whose spirit God had aroused, to go up to build the house of Yahweh, which was in Jerusalem;

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

LUKE 16:19 "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day."

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").
So we see that the garments worn by this rich man were symbolic of royalty and the priesthood. With that in mind, let's see what God told Moses just before giving the Israelites the Law on Mount Sinai:

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. Unfortunately, they frequently did not live up to the high calling given to them by God. Eventually He sent them into captivity for their refusal to honor their part of the covenant ratified at Mount Sinai. At the time of Yeshua, only the House of Judah continued to have a covenant relationship with God. The rich man in this parable represents the religious Jews of Yeshua's day, exemplified by their teachers, the Pharisees and scribes.
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. Indeed, Paul recounts the glorious station of the House of Judah in Romans 9:

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. They gloried in the gifts, without glorifying the Eternal God who gave them. Instead of being a "royal priesthood" that was a blessing to all nations, they instead loathed and despised the surrounding peoples. Certainly, as Paul wrote, "their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them" (Rom. 11:9).

 

[Believe the Impossible]

I was always under the impression that if Jesus were telling a parable, He would then explain said parable. Is there an explanation given to which we would then garner it only a parable? I know of none for this scripture. Are there other parables in which Jesus did not explain, to which we know for fact is a parable?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I was always under the impression that if Jesus were telling a parable, He would then explain said parable. Is there an explanation given to which we would then garner it only a parable? I know of none for this scripture. Are there other parables in which Jesus did not explain, to which we know for fact is a parable?

That is why that parable/story fascinates me so much.

This favorite commentator of mind puts forth a good summation of it, compared to the parables spoken with the parable of the rich-man and lazarus. Enjoy

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..." Yet it is generally conceded that the story of the prodigal son is a parable and all the fundamentalist preachers love to preach from its beautiful figures, thus applying it as a parable.

Usually, when the story of the rich man and Lazarus is considered, its setting is ignored. At the time the story was told Jesus had just eaten dinner with a Pharisee, at which time He not only healed a man with dropsy, but gave some pointed advice about how to give a dinner party. When He left the house, great throngs followed Him. Many of this great company were publicans and sinners who drew near to hear His teaching, and mingled with them were a great number of the scribes and Pharisees.

The scribes and Pharisees complained openly and bitterly against Jesus, condemning Him because He received sinners into His company and ate with them. Against this background of biting criticism Jesus stood and gave the teachings found in chapters fifteen and sixteen of Luke. There are five stories which follow consecutively. It is well known, of course, that chapters and verses were not in the original scriptures. We are at liberty to change them when they do not synchronize with other scripture. Any arrangement of chapter and verse division that clarifies or harmonizes other scripture, is more authoritative than that division that beclouds other statements of the Bible.

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," this embraces the entire collection of symbol-pictures which in their completeness constituted the parable which He spoke. It is a careless assumption and an unfounded assertion to argue that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Leggomyegolas

So, in the rich man and Lazarus, we do have names. Why? Because it's telling a historical account of something that really happened. In that case, names do matter.​

​

According to the 1932 movie, Babes in Toyland AKA The March of the Wooden Soldiers, the names of the Three Little Pigs are Elmer, Willie, and Jiggs.

So in the story of the three little pigs, we do have names. Why? Because it's telling a historical account of something that really happened. In this case, names do matter.

Everyone knows the 3 stooges, Moe, Larry and Curly, really lived and are still alive to this day.
I know, becuz I watch them on TV

The Three Stooges - Moe Slap Happy - YouTube

 

[Timothew]

[/indent]Everyone knows the 3 stooges, Moe, Larry and Curly, really lived and are still alive to this day.
I know, becuz I watch them on TV

The Three Stooges - Moe Slap Happy - YouTube

They should put Moe Howard in jail for his physical abuse of his poor brother, Curly.
What's the matter with you? This isn't UT! Why I otta!

 

[watchman333]

In my opinion, this is not a parable but what happens to us the minute we die. We are summarily judged (not the Great White Throne Judgement) and escorted to one side of the gulf or the other. Have you seen the movie, Ghost? It will be just like that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

In my opinion, this is not a parable but what happens to us the minute we die.
We are summarily judged (not the Great White Throne Judgement) and escorted to one side of the gulf or the other.
Have you seen the movie, Ghost? It will be just like that.

Thank you for your response.
What does the "gulf" symbolize in that parablel/story?

I have a thread on it if you or others want to share a view for it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7436472-4/#post54015375
Luke 16:26 and the great "chasm/gulf"


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 hence toward ye no may be able, neither thence toward us may be ferrying

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

​

Everyone knows the 3 stooges, Moe, Larry and Curly, really lived and are still alive to this day.
I know, becuz I watch them on TV

[/INDENT]

They should put Moe Howard in jail for his physical abuse of his poor brother, Curly.
What's the matter with you? This isn't UT! Why I otta!

Moe needs Jesus, no doubt about it

Reminds me of what Paul said after Ananias had him smacked

Acts 23:1 And Paul having earnestly beheld the sanhedrim said "Men, brethren, I in all good conscience have lived to God unto this day"
2 and the chief priest, Ananias, commanded those standing by him to smite him on the mouth,
3 then Paul said unto him, "God is about to smite thee, thou whitewashed wall, and thou--thou dost sit judging me according to the law, and, violating law, dost order me to be smitten!"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Brought over from another thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7675584/

Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
​

Alice: No parable can contain a name.
Bob: The Parable of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable and it contains a name!
Alice: No actual parable contains a name.
​

The trouble is we are disagreeing on the definition of parable.
Here is the accepted definition of Parable from Merriam-Webster:
"a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle."

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man fits the definition perfectly. But then, in order to say the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man is not a parable, the definition of parable is changed to " a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle that doesn't contain a name."

So then a person could point out many secular storys that are commonly accepted as parables usually do have names (and I have done this). Then the definition gets changed again to "a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle that doesn't contain a name and is included in the Bible."

Why don't we just include this in the definition?
"a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle that doesn't contain a name and is included in the Bible and isn't the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man".

I believe you and I are on the same wavelength. Good post

 

[Timothew]

Brought over from another thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7675584/
I believe you and I are on the same wavelength. Good post

Yep!

I probably should have posted that over here, but I don't like to leave "Unorthodox Theology". I might accidentally post the truth and get banned.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yep!

I probably should have posted that over here, but I don't like to leave "Unorthodox Theology". I might accidentally post the truth and get banned.

I got yer back bro

http://www.christianforums.com/t7615351/

the ban me game

this game is really enjoyable and easy game to play for everyone.
all you have to do is "ban" the person above you for a fun reason.
so, who is going to ban me and why? ENJOY!!!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Timothew Alice: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Bob: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Alice: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
Alice: No parable can contain a name.
Bob: The Parable of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable and it contains a name!
Alice: No actual parable contains a name.

The trouble is we are disagreeing on the definition of parable.
Here is the accepted definition of Parable from Merriam-Webster:
"a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle."

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man fits the definition perfectly. But then, in order to say the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man is not a parable, the definition of parable is changed to " a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle that doesn't contain a name."

So then a person could point out many secular storys that are commonly accepted as parables usually do have names (and I have done this). Then the definition gets changed again to "a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle that doesn't contain a name and is included in the Bible."

Why don't we just include this in the definition?
"a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle that doesn't contain a name and is included in the Bible and isn't the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man".

because "ficticious" is what you want it to be
that is the whole point
you are wrong, all you have to show is one example other than lazerus and the rich man where a name is used in a parable. And we will leave it alone.

So, just leave it alone

 

[Timothew]

Originally Posted by gradyll

because "ficticious" is what you want it to be
that is the whole point
you are wrong, all you have to show is one example other than lazerus and the rich man where a name is used in a parable. And we will leave it alone.
​

The parable of foolish Jack.
And you spelled "lazerus" wrong.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by gradyll

because "ficticious" is what you want it to be
that is the whole point
you are wrong, all you have to show is one example other than lazerus and the rich man where a name is used in a parable. And we will leave it alone.
​

The parable of foolish Jack.
And you spelled "lazerus" wrong.

Any relation to this foolish Man in Matt 7

Matt 7:26 And every one who is hearing of me these words, and is not doing them, shall be likened to a foolish man who built his house upon the sand;
27 and the rain did descend and the streams came and the winds blew,
and they beat on that house, and it fell, and its fall was great.

Revelation 14:8 And another messenger did follow, saying, `Fall, fall, did Babylon, the great city...........
Revelation 18:2 and he did cry in might--a great voice, saying, `Fall, fall did Babylon the great,

 

[Believe the Impossible]

Yes, we compare scripture with scripture, not human fables. Is there a parable where a proper name is used in another parable? I do not know for sure, but it is a good place to start. And, again, as I am not sure, but is there another parable where Jesus does not explain its meaning, to which we know for certain it is a parable. Thanks, all! May the Holy Spirit guide us all to the truth of our Holy Father in Heaven!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes, we compare scripture with scripture, not human fables. Is there a parable where a proper name is used in another parable? I do not know for sure, but it is a good place to start. And, again, as I am not sure, but is there another parable where Jesus does not explain its meaning, to which we know for certain it is a parable. Thanks, all! May the Holy Spirit guide us all to the truth of our Holy Father in Heaven!

I may start a seperate thread on that. Let me ponder on it for awhile.

Eze 20:49 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! They say of me, 'Does he not speak parables?' "

Mat 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them,

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

since the dead cannot speak until resurrected and certainly don't get thirsty and know nothing in death , cannot suffer in any way ... this fake 'parable' which contains a irrelevant name unlike true parables and the rest of scripture , is an insert, the rest of scripture and its lack of any possible meaning proves it is a fake...equally it is written only once unlike the points made by God in scripture :-

2 Corinthians 13:1 ... In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

Wow!
What can I say but, just delete that parable out of your own Bible

 

[Believe the Impossible]

Thanks, Little Lamb! That scripture is also a good start. So, does 'multitude' have any bearing on this topic, meaning is there a difference when He speaks to the 'multitudes', disciples, the Pharisees, etc.; is Matthew 13:34 only about the specific parables told in Matthew 13, "these things"? Do we conclude from this scripture that Jesus 'only' speaks in parables to all/any multitudes? If Jesus doesn't 'explain' a particular parable, how do we then distinguish it from other speech by Him, which is to be taken as literal? I suppose I mean, how do we then distinguish all of Jesus' speech as either parable vs literal? Thanks!

edit* maybe you should start a new thread as I would surely be edified by such!

 

[Believe the Impossible]

Please note, As to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, I have always taken it to be literal. There was no motive behind this faith; it is just the way I’ve read and understood it. To those here who believe it is a parable, I am always ready to be edified as to why it is so important to view it one way or the other, meaning, how would this change or enhance my faith in Jesus Christ, make my walk with Him stronger and how would it strengthen my witness to the gospel.

These are the only truly important points on which any argument for or against would have to be touched upon and to be edifying in any sense of my purpose in this world or to any other true follower of Jesus Christ. If there were any reason beyond these points, then I would have to question said motive and desire an answer to it.

Please explain for all of us why it is important to view this scripture as a parable and how would it change or enhance our walk, lives and witness to Christ?

And if it is a literal or even prophetic view, how would this, also, change or enhance our walk, lives and witness to Christ?

What is the true meaning and what was God trying to tell us?

Because, if I am wrong in my view, I am always willing to listen and learn from those here or elsewhere, as to why it is wrong and how seeing it from a different perspective would help me. Thank you all for your input and love!

p.s. if there is a new thread, could someone please link here in this one? Thanks, again!!!