What are the 5 brothers in parable of Rich man/lazarus

[Father Rick]

When Jesus spoke parables He did so so that they could be heard in the natural sense and had meaning (ie sowing natural seed ) and others might hear in the spiritual sense (ie sowing spiritual seed)
Now the 5 brothers could indeed be five natural brothers of the rich man.
But I have a spiritual understanding which perhaps requires some background information. Because the theme is eternal life I see it as end times related as much of Jesus' teaching was. Now if you refer to Revelation you will recal the prevalance of the number seven. Now I have equated ALL these sevens as having reference to the seven covenants The Lord has made since creation. Now as the last of the seven was not applicable at the time of Jesus' parable there were only six - the sixth being The Law applicable at the time the rich man died and went to hell. Now if he represents the sixth covenant than it is possible that the spiritual meaning is that his "brothers" were similar sinful souls of the other five covenants. Now all this makes sense if you can accept that Revelation indicates how God intends to deal with (restore them to Himself) each of His covenants in the reverse order that He formed them (beginning with the Church) That being the case, the parable is a warning to the other "five" endtimes peoples to believe as God has ordained

The difficulty here lies with what Paul wrote "No prophecy of scripture is for private interpretation". In other words, we are not to go around deciding our own interpretations for passages, but rather look to what it actually says.

I am the first to agree that there are many parables in scripture that are allegorical in nature, however Jesus always turned to his disciples and explained what he meant in the parables. The goal of scripture is not to hide the truth but to reveal it. The desire to find a 'hidden truth' that only the 'spiritual' can discern is gnosticism-- a heresy that was condemned very early in the Church. We should always focus on those things that scripture makes plain first.

I find it particularly interesting that in your interpretation of this passage, you have completely neglected the face value of the scripture-- especially when that face value is repeated by Jesus in other ways in other passages. The face value of the passage states that the rich man was condemned because he did not show compassion to those in need. As a result he was cast into hell. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus makes it clear that whoever serves 'the least of these' (the poor, the hungry, the sick, those in prison) would receive eternal reward and whoever does not do this-- no matter how spiritual they may act-- would receive eternal judgement. In fact, in that parable Jesus says the goats will wonder why they are judged, since they were just as 'spiritual' as the sheep. This theme is repeated by Jesus over and again. In his epistle, James picks up this theme that 'faith without works is dead'.

This approach to scriptural interpretation tends to have the same result every time. It seems that the view is 'let's be spiritual instead of being practical'. This is the very thing the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They were looking for all the minute details of the Law rather than caring for those around them. If anything, it seems that those who try to use this method of interpretation are actually doing exactly the thing Jesus was condemning in this passage.

 

[NewSong]

The difficulty here lies with what Paul wrote "No prophecy of scripture is for private interpretation". In other words, we are not to go around deciding our own interpretations for passages, but rather look to what it actually says.

I am the first to agree that there are many parables in scripture that are allegorical in nature, however Jesus always turned to his disciples and explained what he meant in the parables. The goal of scripture is not to hide the truth but to reveal it. The desire to find a 'hidden truth' that only the 'spiritual' can discern is gnosticism-- a heresy that was condemned very early in the Church. We should always focus on those things that scripture makes plain first.

I find it particularly interesting that in your interpretation of this passage, you have completely neglected the face value of the scripture-- especially when that face value is repeated by Jesus in other ways in other passages. The face value of the passage states that the rich man was condemned because he did not show compassion to those in need. As a result he was cast into hell. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus makes it clear that whoever serves 'the least of these' (the poor, the hungry, the sick, those in prison) would receive eternal reward and whoever does not do this-- no matter how spiritual they may act-- would receive eternal judgement. In fact, in that parable Jesus says the goats will wonder why they are judged, since they were just as 'spiritual' as the sheep. This theme is repeated by Jesus over and again. In his epistle, James picks up this theme that 'faith without works is dead'.

This approach to scriptural interpretation tends to have the same result every time. It seems that the view is 'let's be spiritual instead of being practical'. This is the very thing the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They were looking for all the minute details of the Law rather than caring for those around them. If anything, it seems that those who try to use this method of interpretation are actually doing exactly the thing Jesus was condemning in this passage.

What an excellent post and one that actually that was freeing me! I examined and examined last night trying to get that passage right and finally gave it up and felt so horrible and not because anyone done that to me but because I was frustrated with myself and my inability to get it. Thank you Father Rick for this post. Now I can just leave it alone!

Bless you,
NewSong

 

[muffler dragon]

My brother told me that the other day "Muffler Dragon" and thank you for sharing...Do you know where I might find that passage in the Bible?

God Bless 'Muffler Dragon'

NewSong

It's not so much a passage in the Bible as it is an understanding of the Scripture through a Jewish context. Paradise = Bosom of Abraham is simply a Jewish idiom. It may occur in the Talmud or be a midrashic saying, but I am not 'in the know' regarding those. Simply something that sources have told me in conversation.

Have a pleasant day.

m.d.

 

[NewSong]

It's not so much a passage in the Bible as it is an understanding of the Scripture through a Jewish context. Paradise = Bosom of Abraham is simply a Jewish idiom. It may occur in the Talmud or be a midrashic saying, but I am not 'in the know' regarding those. Simply something that sources have told me in conversation.

Have a pleasant day.

m.d.

M.D. Yeah I know about the sources telling me in conversations but I guess that I always wanted to know what I was talking about was a fact so I thought I would at least ask. Thanks for your post.

NewSong

 

[muffler dragon]

M.D. Yeah I know about the sources telling me in conversations but I guess that I always wanted to know what I was talking about was a fact so I thought I would at least ask. Thanks for your post.

NewSong

If I have the time, then I will try to find something that satisfies your craving.

m.d.

 

[jangnim]

The difficulty here lies with what Paul wrote "No prophecy of scripture is for private interpretation". In other words, we are not to go around deciding our own interpretations for passages, but rather look to what it actually says.

I agree. This leads to heresy. One of the difficulties of our day is that everyone and his brother comes up with some overly spiritual translation of a passage and before you know it, we are off in left field.

I am the first to agree that there are many parables in scripture that are allegorical in nature, however Jesus always turned to his disciples and explained what he meant in the parables. The goal of scripture is not to hide the truth but to reveal it. The desire to find a 'hidden truth' that only the 'spiritual' can discern is gnosticism-- a heresy that was condemned very early in the Church. We should always focus on those things that scripture makes plain first.

Again, 100% true. Although I would add that if God reveals a spiritual meaning, we should carefully compare it to the rest of scripture to ensure its accuracy. The gnostics had limited access to scripture and had many writings not in the Word. These other writings were given weight of scripture and thus led them astray.

I find it particularly interesting that in your interpretation of this passage, you have completely neglected the face value of the scripture-- especially when that face value is repeated by Jesus in other ways in other passages. The face value of the passage states that the rich man was condemned because he did not show compassion to those in need. As a result he was cast into hell. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus makes it clear that whoever serves 'the least of these' (the poor, the hungry, the sick, those in prison) would receive eternal reward and whoever does not do this-- no matter how spiritual they may act-- would receive eternal judgement. In fact, in that parable Jesus says the goats will wonder why they are judged, since they were just as 'spiritual' as the sheep. This theme is repeated by Jesus over and again. In his epistle, James picks up this theme that 'faith without works is dead'.

This brings to mind a related thought, so many of us as Christians are happy to go to church and be fed, and so pleased to avoid "the way of sinners" without any consideration of the needs of the sinners, not only for Christ Himself, but also for earthly blessing. We are all called to be servants to everyone. Let's not be so spiritual that we forget our mission on earth is to assist others in finding the Christ.

This approach to scriptural interpretation tends to have the same result every time. It seems that the view is 'let's be spiritual instead of being practical'. This is the very thing the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They were looking for all the minute details of the Law rather than caring for those around them. If anything, it seems that those who try to use this method of interpretation are actually doing exactly the thing Jesus was condemning in this passage.

What a wonderful and caring approach to the translation of the word. Hats off to you my brother.

 

[muffler dragon]

Dear NewSong:

Here is one such thing that might be of interest:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/prophecy/comma.htm

The question of Paradise

Did Christ and the thief go to Paradise on that day? In order to answer the question, we need to be reminded that some Jews believed in the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6, 8). If a Pharisee were asked how the dead are raised (the very question that arose later in Corinth, cf. 1 Cor. 15:35), he would have said that, when righteous people die, they go to a special place where they await their resurrection. This place is called by various names. One name is "Paradise." Another is "the Bosom of Abraham."

Jewish tradition acknowledged all the elements used in Christ's parable. The poor man was carried by the angels to the Bosom of Abraham (cf. Luke 16:22 and Ketubot 104a). The Bosom of Abraham is mentioned in the writings of the intertestamental period (4 Maccabees 13:17) and in Qiddusin 72b. Most important, Abraham is "designated as he who receives...the penitent into Paradise" (Alfred Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, II, p. 280; see also `Erubin 19a).

Note: the entire report discusses a question not brought up in this thread, but this particular portion gives a slight validation to what I have stated and then shows where there are a few writings regarding it.

All I did was google "paradise bosom of abraham" and this was one selection of many.
***One of which had to do with a psychic network - go figure***

m.d.

 

[Trish1947]

I'm going to ask this question M.D. with all the grace that God supplies me. So please bear with me.. isn't it your contension that the 5 brothers are the ones "outside" of the "whole truth" of Jewish tradition and understanding? That those that are Christian, but have no knowledge of Jewish tradition or law, still do not have a hold on the whole truth? And without learning about their traditions and laws, sabbaths, observences, cannot have the whole truth?. I know we have discussed this in other threads. And I know from other discussions that you hold these things dear to your heart, and I do respect them, and I know you believe it is very important that you point these issues out to us.

 

[Svt4Him]

Now why did David pick up five smooth stones? Did he believe he'd have a chance to use all five?

 

[muffler dragon]

I'm going to ask this question M.D. with all the grace that God supplies me. So please bear with me..

Nothing like starting off a statement that bears paranoia.

isn't it your contension that the 5 brothers are the ones "outside" of the "whole truth" of Jewish tradition and understanding?

This is not my contention. I would be interested in hearing how you came to such a possibility or conclusion to bring this type of question.

The 5 brothers are: *quiet please* the five brothers of the rich man. I make no speculation other than that this man's parents 'made love' 5 times and produced 5 offspring that would be considered his siblings.

That those that are Christian, but have no knowledge of Jewish tradition or law, still do not have a hold on the whole truth? And without learning about their traditions and laws, sabbaths, observences, cannot have the whole truth?. I know we have discussed this in other threads. And I know from other discussions that you hold these things dear to your heart, and I do respect them, and I know you believe it is very important that you point these issues out to us.

Regarding the "rich man", there isn't anything that even denotes his nationality. But I would have to speculate that he was probably of Jewish origin. Therefore, I am sure that he and his brothers were raised in knowledge of the things you state above. Besides, the rich man did the following:

24 "And he cried out and said, '(22) Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in (23) this flame.'
25 "But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that (24) during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
26 'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.'
27 "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house--
28 for I have five brothers--in order that he may (25) warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29 "But Abraham said, 'They have (26) Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.'
30 "But he said, 'No, (27) father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'

I think the three times that he calls Abraham "father" shows with some certainty that he was knowledgeable of the tenets of Judaism.

Anyways... to get back to an earlier question of mine: what did I write that would possibly make you address me with these questions and in such a cautious light?

m.d.

 

[Trish1947]

I was trying to ask a decent question, I'm not good at getting my points across so I prayed, if thats paranoia, you lost me already. you want us to learn, and all I get for my trouble is being called Paranoid.. go figure.. I'll find another teacher if you don't mind. I said in my other post that I was unlearned. All you had to say was I had misunderstood you.. Sorry, I bothered you.

 

[muffler dragon]

I was trying to ask a decent question, I'm not good at getting my points across so I prayed, if thats paranoia, you lost me already. you want us to learn, and all I get for my trouble is being called Paranoid.. go figure.. I'll find another teacher if you don't mind. I said in my other post that I was unlearned. All you had to say was I had misunderstood you.. Sorry, I bothered you.

Trish,

I was not attempting to be anything, but understanding.

When you say,

with all the grace that God supplies me. So please bear with me

It came across to me that you were needing to be restrained by grace in order to temper what you really wanted to ask.

I misread your statement and I apologize.

And then you ask me this:

isn't it your contension that the 5 brothers are the ones "outside" of the "whole truth" of Jewish tradition and understanding?

I simply would like to know what would make you draw such a conclusion. Once again, I misread your statement by thinking that it had a negative connotation.

I assure you that I meant no high-minded or heavy-handed reproach in my response to you. Therefore, I hope that you can continue to address me in a manner that is fruitful to both of us.

m.d.

 

[Trish1947]

Trish,

I was not attempting to be anything, but understanding.

When you say,



It came across to me that you were needing to be restrained by grace in order to temper what you really wanted to ask.

I misread your statement and I apologize.

And then you ask me this:



I simply would like to know what would make you draw such a conclusion. Once again, I misread your statement by thinking that it had a negative connotation.

I assure you that I meant no high-minded or heavy-handed reproach in my response to you. Therefore, I hope that you can continue to address me in a manner that is fruitful to both of us.

m.d.

We had differences in the past, so I was asking God to give me the grace to approach you without you getting PO'ed. It didn't work. You jumped down my throat because we don't mix I guess. You seem anxious to do that for some reason.. lets just leave it at that..

 

[muffler dragon]

We had differences in the past, so I was asking God to give me the grace to approach you without you getting PO'ed. It didn't work. You jumped down my throat because we don't mix I guess. You seem anxious to do that for some reason.. lets just leave it at that..

Actually, I didn't mean to jump at all.

To give you a brief amount of recent history: my Thanksgiving day stunk, I slept in most days, went to bed late, drove close to 1700 miles and had to wake up this morning at 6:15 to go to work. Other than that, I thought I was in a great mood.

But seriously, may I ask once again, why you thought it would be my contention that the five brothers would be similar to Christians outside of the Jewish mindset?

m.d.

 

[Trish1947]

Sorry you had a lousy Thanksgiving, and are tired. And I'm willing to do better at communicating with you.. there's got to be a better outcome. anyway I read this on this thread, and was looking for your thoughts about my question and this posters approach.

Posted by A4C...

Law applicable at the time the rich man died and went to hell. Now if he represents the sixth covenant than it is possible that the spiritual meaning is that his "brothers" were similar sinful souls of the other five covenants. Now all this makes sense if you can accept that Revelation indicates how God intends to deal with (restore them to Himself) each of His covenants in the reverse order that He formed them (beginning with the Church) That being the case, the parable is a warning to the other "five" endtimes peoples to believe as God has ordained

 

[Suffolk Sean]

I would bet they are Jewish based on this verse alone:


31 But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.' "

 

[muffler dragon]

Sorry you had a lousy Thanksgiving, and are tired. And I'm willing to do better at communicating with you.. there's got to be a better outcome. anyway I read this on this thread, and was looking for your thoughts about my question and this posters approach.

Posted by A4C...

Law applicable at the time the rich man died and went to hell. Now if he represents the sixth covenant than it is possible that the spiritual meaning is that his "brothers" were similar sinful souls of the other five covenants. Now all this makes sense if you can accept that Revelation indicates how God intends to deal with (restore them to Himself) each of His covenants in the reverse order that He formed them (beginning with the Church) That being the case, the parable is a warning to the other "five" endtimes peoples to believe as God has ordained

Oh, I never read that post.

Wouldn't necessarily agree with that person's consideration either.

I do apologize most sincerely for any ill that I have caused you. I enjoy not only our conversations but also the little that I know of you as a person.

Have a pleasant day.

m.d.

 

[Father Rick]

Now why did David pick up five smooth stones? Did he believe he'd have a chance to use all five?

David picked up 5 stones because Goliath had 4 brothers and David planned on killing all 5 of them but the other 4 fled with the rest of the Philistines.

If you trace the life of David, you find that later in his battles with the Philistines he did eventually kill all 4 of Goliath's brothers as well.

 

[muffler dragon]

David picked up 5 stones because Goliath had 4 brothers and David planned on killing all 5 of them but the other 4 fled with the rest of the Philistines.

If you trace the life of David, you find that later in his battles with the Philistines he did eventually kill all 4 of Goliath's brothers as well.

Bingo!

The only reason why I didn't comment on this earlier was because I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be some other sort of symbolizing.

m.d.

 

[In Christ Forever]

I am the first to agree that there are many parables in scripture that are allegorical in nature, however Jesus always turned to his disciples and explained what he meant in the parables. The goal of scripture is not to hide the truth but to reveal it. The desire to find a 'hidden truth' that only the 'spiritual' can discern is gnosticism-- a heresy that was condemned very early in the Church. We should always focus on those things that scripture makes plain first.

When studying scripture ALWAYS look at the face value of the scripture first. It is only after we look at the plain meaning of the text should one even begin to look to see if there might possibly be a more allegorical interpretation.

Is it possible that Christ may have intended all these things... well it is possible. But they are clearly not the emphasis of the passage.

The fact that Father Abraham is mentioned, the Rich man was buried, but lazarus went to Abraham's "bosom and the 5 brothers are mentioned which would have symbolized to the jewish rulers Jesus was talking about them, the kingdom would be taken from them and the torment they would suffer would be the "stumbling rock" or "testing". And since Jeremiah says the "jews" would burn in His anger forever, it doesn't look too promising for them untill they come to the Cross I think[oh, I forget, they are still waiting on their own "messiah"]God bless.

luke 16:14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him......... 27 "Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28 'for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.'

The fact that the rich man has five brothers is a vital clue to his true symbolic identity. Judah, the progenitor of the Jews, was the son of Jacob through Leah .

He had five full-blooded brothers:
Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Issachar, and Zebulun.
The Pharisees and scribes to which Christ was speaking. They thoroughly knew their history and were extremely proud of their heritage. Jesus 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!


Kind of matches up perfectly to jeremiah. The jews are "landless" forever untill they come to the CROSS. Guess that is what the "lake of fire" the rich man/judah is in. Interesting. Any idea what this "sin of judah" is

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah [is] written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart, And on the horns of your altars, 2 While their children remember Their altars and their wooden images By the green trees on the high hills. 3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders.3 O My mountain in the field, I will give as plunder your wealth, all your treasures, [And] your high places of sin within all your borders. 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

Malachi 2:1 "And now, O priests, this commandment is for you. 2 If you will not hear, And if you will not take [it] to heart, To give glory to My name," Says the LORD of hosts, "I will send a curse upon you, And I will curse your blessings. Yes, I have cursed them already, Because you do not take [it] to heart. 3 "Behold, I will rebuke your descendants And spread Dung on your faces, The refuse of your solemn feasts; And [one] will take you away with it.