- Sep 30, 2004
- 3,994
- 620
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Hey Laureate,
Forgive me for snipping your response, but I am a bit foggy from the medication that I am on and I wanted to limit my response to the parable and the context of your post, if not the content. The parable given was prophetic and symbolic; true, but the context of the letter was directed to the branch of the Zadokim that had taken the position of Cohen Gadol by guile. Their family controlled the Temple concessions by political favor and might, granted from Rome; hence the ironic honorific 'rich man' given by the Master. The rich merchant class and the family of the high priests were pretty much the same thing.
Luke's letter itself was addressed to the sixth (using the cultural rather than literal designation of) 'brother' of this family and the parable was a prophetic look at this priest's past relations and future predicament, should he not change his ways. Most agree that a great deal of this letter (at least the first parts) dealt with the issues Messiah had with the cohens. This parable dealt with issues that might move the current Cohen Gadol reconsider his denial of all things spiritual.
Granted that there were elements that might be considered symbolic of the resurrection. That was part and parcel of the message of the Messiah. But certainly not a consideration of the Zadokim in that day. They had to be convinced; and what better way than through a personal prophecy where the Cohen Gadol was mentioned and that had already come true in part?
As far as considering this an illustration of 'rapture'; I don't think so. Isn't 'in the bosom of Abraham' an idiomatic reference to the sleep of the righteous dead? The exchange in the parable was between the rich man (representing the priesthood) and Abraham (representing the inheritors of the promise). The beggar was silent throughout. Take a look.
19 Once there was a rich man who used to dress in the most expensive clothing and spent his days in magnificent luxury. 20 At his gate had been laid a beggar named Elazar who was covered with sores. 21 He would have been glad to eat the scraps that fell from the rich mans table; but instead, even the dogs would come and lick his sores. 22 In time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Avrahams side; the rich man also died and was buried.
23 In Shol, where he was in torment, the rich man looked up and saw Avraham far away with Elazar at his side. 24 He called out, Father Avraham, take pity on me, and send Elazar just to dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue, because Im in agony in this fire! 25 However, Avraham said, Son, remember that when you were alive, you got the good things while he got the bad; but now he gets his consolation here, while you are the one in agony. 26 Yet that isnt all: between you and us a deep rift has been established, so that those who would like to pass from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.
27 He answered, Then, father, I beg you to send him to my fathers house, 28 where I have five brothers, to warn them; so that they may be spared having to come to this place of torment too. 29 But Avraham said, They have Moshe and the Prophets; they should listen to them. 30 However, he said, No, father Avraham, they need more. If someone from the dead goes to them, theyll repent! 31 But he replied, If they wont listen to Moshe and the Prophets, they wont be convinced even if someone rises from the dead!
I'm sure that a few have a different take on this, but what else is new?
Be Well Brother,
Phillip
Forgive me for snipping your response, but I am a bit foggy from the medication that I am on and I wanted to limit my response to the parable and the context of your post, if not the content. The parable given was prophetic and symbolic; true, but the context of the letter was directed to the branch of the Zadokim that had taken the position of Cohen Gadol by guile. Their family controlled the Temple concessions by political favor and might, granted from Rome; hence the ironic honorific 'rich man' given by the Master. The rich merchant class and the family of the high priests were pretty much the same thing.
Luke's letter itself was addressed to the sixth (using the cultural rather than literal designation of) 'brother' of this family and the parable was a prophetic look at this priest's past relations and future predicament, should he not change his ways. Most agree that a great deal of this letter (at least the first parts) dealt with the issues Messiah had with the cohens. This parable dealt with issues that might move the current Cohen Gadol reconsider his denial of all things spiritual.
Granted that there were elements that might be considered symbolic of the resurrection. That was part and parcel of the message of the Messiah. But certainly not a consideration of the Zadokim in that day. They had to be convinced; and what better way than through a personal prophecy where the Cohen Gadol was mentioned and that had already come true in part?
As far as considering this an illustration of 'rapture'; I don't think so. Isn't 'in the bosom of Abraham' an idiomatic reference to the sleep of the righteous dead? The exchange in the parable was between the rich man (representing the priesthood) and Abraham (representing the inheritors of the promise). The beggar was silent throughout. Take a look.
19 Once there was a rich man who used to dress in the most expensive clothing and spent his days in magnificent luxury. 20 At his gate had been laid a beggar named Elazar who was covered with sores. 21 He would have been glad to eat the scraps that fell from the rich mans table; but instead, even the dogs would come and lick his sores. 22 In time the beggar died and was carried away by the angels to Avrahams side; the rich man also died and was buried.
23 In Shol, where he was in torment, the rich man looked up and saw Avraham far away with Elazar at his side. 24 He called out, Father Avraham, take pity on me, and send Elazar just to dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue, because Im in agony in this fire! 25 However, Avraham said, Son, remember that when you were alive, you got the good things while he got the bad; but now he gets his consolation here, while you are the one in agony. 26 Yet that isnt all: between you and us a deep rift has been established, so that those who would like to pass from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.
27 He answered, Then, father, I beg you to send him to my fathers house, 28 where I have five brothers, to warn them; so that they may be spared having to come to this place of torment too. 29 But Avraham said, They have Moshe and the Prophets; they should listen to them. 30 However, he said, No, father Avraham, they need more. If someone from the dead goes to them, theyll repent! 31 But he replied, If they wont listen to Moshe and the Prophets, they wont be convinced even if someone rises from the dead!
I'm sure that a few have a different take on this, but what else is new?
Be Well Brother,
Phillip
Perhaps Lazerus being taken does qualify as a rapture, which by definition must include some degree of Joy when Taken, personally I would have been estatic to join Abraham as opposed to joining the rich man.
Lazerus, like David was permitted to sleep with his forefathers, ahhh! But is not this parable Y'shua's attempt to explain 'ressurection' unto a people who are greatly divided concerning the issue?
*snip*
Last edited:
Upvote
0