Examining Lazurus and the rich man

[RND]

When the rich man asked to be able to intercede on behalf of his brothers, he was told no.

Who were the rich man's brothers?

The point is, if one is not going to listen to "Moses and the Prophets" and I believe that we can include the entire Scriptures in this, then one isn't going to respond to one interceding on their behalf.

And who was the one interceding on behalf of mankind?

 

[francisdesales]

I think you are confusing "pagan" with a philosophy that attempts to explain our nature that has little to do with monotheistic or polytheistic belief. Whether Jewish or Greek philosophy, there really is not much said on the subject in the Bible that clearly states that "body and soul division is false"

I would disagree because I think the Torah is abundantly clear on the state of man after he dies. In referring to this parable the Christian must be prepared to argue from the Torah only because that was the only scriptures available when Jesus gave it.

The Torah (I take it you mean more than the Pentateuch) is NOT abundantly clear on the afterlife... ! There IS no afterlife for MUCH of the OT Scriptures in question! Thus, for most of Jewish history, rewards and punishments are given HERE ON EARTH, not in an "afterlife"...

It is only with Jewish theologians questioning "why does the evil man succeed in life and the good fail" did the idea of rewards and punishments in the next life come to be expressed and believed. Life after death was a relatively recent idea for the Jews of Jesus' day.

While the Jews of the OT did not view man in this way, they also didn't view the Messiah as someone who would die on a cross...

That's only because they ignored the "meat and potatoes" of the Torah.

I think you are missing the point... Things aren't so "obvious" in Scriptures as you imply.

The Hellenistic concept of body and soul are difficult to ignore in the New Testament...

When compared with the totality of scripture however I think we can achieve the proper understanding.

What "totality"??? There is a CHANGE in understanding! Just as there is a change of understanding of the Messiah by God's People, there is a change in understanding of the makeup of man.

 

[handy]

[

Sorry about that. I was also responding to someone totally different on a different website and got myself mixed up. I guess I really shouldn't multitask. Hey, what can you expect from a Bronco's fan!

RND, one of these days I hope you can go from this: :shades to this .

Until then, there is no real reason to keep going around in circles here. You've made your points and explained why you believe them, I've made mine and explained as well. I'm sticking with the more straightforward version of this chapter. Trying to respond to some of your newest answers just seems ...unfruitful. I mean yes, in response to your query "what do the "five brothers" represent?", I could answer, "the other children the rich man's parents had" and then you would come back with a "no, no, they represent..." and I still wouldn't care, because they really are just the other kids the rich man's parents had. To try to infuse any other meaning to them would be adding to the text, something I'm not going to to and don't encourage you to do more than you already have.

Francis, (it is Francis right?), I do see what you are saying and agree that the soil will determine the fruit. I'm still unconvinced that those who have gone on before us are able to intercede upon our behalf. But, I also think that is something that cannot be proved or disproved, so there really isn't a whole lot of reason to debate the issue either. Let each be convinced in his own mind on a subject such as this.

I have always found that one of the most profound truths in this whole passage is verse 31, "But he said to them, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.'"

This always kind of stops me in my tracks, because Jesus did rise from the dead, didn't He? And so many still refuse to believe, don't they? I was just speaking on this very thing with one of our unbelieving members on a different thread. Jesus came performing signs and miracles, He shone light on the Scriptures, which were being twisted by the Pharisees, He died and came back again, and they still rejected Him.

 

[RND]

The Torah (I take it you mean more than the Pentateuch)

No, I meant the Torah, If I'd have meant the Psalms and prophets I would have said Tanakh.

is NOT abundantly clear on the afterlife... !

It's crystal clear.

There IS no afterlife for MUCH of the OT Scriptures in question!

I disagree. Job knew he would be resurrected.

Thus, for most of Jewish history, rewards and punishments are given HERE ON EARTH, not in an "afterlife"...

Again, I think eternal life and it's reward is definatelt something we can read about in the Torah and Tanakh.

It is only with Jewish theologians questioning "why does the evil man succeed in life and the good fail" did the idea of rewards and punishments in the next life come to be expressed and believed. Life after death was a relatively recent idea for the Jews of Jesus' day.

Yea, I agree. But that was because they didn't fully choose to understand the scriptures not a fault of the scriptures.

I think you are missing the point... Things aren't so "obvious" in Scriptures as you imply.

Well, apparently they are or else Jesus wouldn't have felt the need to chide the Pharisees for adopting their pagan beliefs.

What "totality"???

All the books of the Bible.

There is a CHANGE in understanding!

Right. Not a change in the word. The word didn't change, man's understanding of it did however.

Just as there is a change of understanding of the Messiah by God's People, there is a change in understanding of the makeup of man.

Again, you are right. But that change in understanding was not based on the scriptures but the adoption of pagan beliefs.

 

[RND]

[

Sorry about that. I was also responding to someone totally different on a different website and got myself mixed up. I guess I really shouldn't multitask. Hey, what can you expect from a Bronco's fan!

Not much apparently! :P

RND, one of these days I hope you can go from this: :shades to this .

Cool to happy? I'm both.

Until then, there is no real reason to keep going around in circles here. You've made your points and explained why you believe them, I've made mine and explained as well. I'm sticking with the more straightforward version of this chapter.

Yes, I see that. The OP was about expanding our knowledge and understanding of the metaphorical references that Jesus made. You dont want to do this. You are happy knowing what you know without expanding that. That's :shades for you.

Trying to respond to some of your newest answers just seems ...unfruitful.

In what way?

I mean yes, in response to your query "what do the "five brothers" represent?", I could answer, "the other children the rich man's parents had" and then you would come back with a "no, no, they represent..." and I still wouldn't care, because they really are just the other kids the rich man's parents had.

That's true, they are the other children that the rich man's parents had. Who then were the rich man's parents and why is knowing that so vital to understanding this parable. Lazarus represents Abraham's servant and so the five brothers represent something.

To try to infuse any other meaning to them would be adding to the text, something I'm not going to to and don't encourage you to do more than you already have.

Adding to the text? How? By letting the Bible speak for itself? Please, don't take this the wrong way but that seems like "lazy Christianity" if you ask me and one of the major problems of Christianity today. Kind'a like a "Aw, I'll just let my pastor tell me what it means."

 

[handy]

[

Sorry about that. I was also responding to someone totally different on a different website and got myself mixed up. I guess I really shouldn't multitask. Hey, what can you expect from a Bronco's fan!

Not much apparently! :P

:P


Just out of curiosity, do you follow the teachings of L.Ray Smith?

 

[RND]

Just out of curiosity, do you follow the teachings of L.Ray Smith?

I've read his stuff but I don't endorse any of his teachings, especially regarding Israel. Besides, he isn't an Adventist!

 

[handy]

I was just curious, because Smith teaches that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is filled with hidden meanings, Lazarus being Eliezer, the rich man being nation Judah (wearing purple and fine linen signifying Judah's royalty and priesthood), the brothers representing the 5 brothers of Judah (the guy not the nation, it all gets a little murky).

 

[Vic C.]

Did I miss something? How do we equate adultery to the meaning of the following parable? Luke 16:31 seems to explain the meaning of the parable.

Sidenote: L.Ray Smith is a Universalist. His thoughts on the "rapture" are interesting though.

snip

No, they were serving two masters (one really) by worshipping mammom rather than God. The entire context of the chapter has nothing to do with any Greek paganistic idea.

Why not? You've managed to give me a statement but no substance to chew on.

snip

Actually, this story predates any Hellenistic beliefs. It dates back to the Babylonian captivity and their Babylonian Talmud. Jesus borrowed a story they would be familiar with and adapted to reflect whe He was trying to teach them.

(in my best Bill and Ted accent)

This is a most excellent explanation. :D

http://www.bibleexplained.com/Gospels/Luke/Lu16b.html

 

[Drew]

Although the account may be a "parable", there is no reason to presume that this is NOT another analogous use of "common items" to explain metaphysical realities. The purpose of Christ's parables were to explain the "unexplainable" using analogous items or relationships. "The Kingdom is like..."

The underlying meaning of the story is not to focus on whether there are actual fingers in the after life, (I agree our mode of existence will not be the same as now) but that people are "alert and awake" after death (and before the Second Coming).

I agree with your point here. Note that I never said in my post that this was not a parable about the afterlife, I said it was not an an account of two real dead people. The "finger" argument proves it cannot be a literal account.

But I do not, in fact, think that the parable is about the afterlife. I may give voice to what I think the parable is about in my own words, but is essentially this view expressed by NT Wright as follows:

"The parable is not, as often supposed, a description of the afterlife, warning people to be sure of their ultimate destination. If that were its point, it would not be a parable: a story about someone getting lost in London would not be a parable if addressed to people attempting to find their way through that city without a map. We have perhaps been misled, not for the first time, by the too-ready assumption, in the teeth of the evidence, that Jesus 'must really' have been primarily concerned to teach people 'how to go to heaven after death'. The reality is uncomfortably different.

"The welcome of Lazarus by Abraham evokes the welcome of the prodigal by the father, and with much the same point. The heavenly reality, in which the poor and outcast would be welcomed into Abraham's bosom (as everyone would know from the folk-tale), was coming true in flesh and blood as Jesus welcomed the outcasts, just as the father's welcome to the returning son was a story about what Jesus was actually doing then and there. The theme of 'rich and poor', not unimportant in Luke, is here thrown into stark prominence, as recent studies have stressed. But the point of this, when the story is seen as a traditional tale with a new ending, was not so much what would happen to both in the end, nor yet simply a statement on the abstract 'ethical' issue of wealth and poverty, but rather what was happening to both rich and poor in the present time. Jesus' welcome of the poor and outcast was a sign that the real return from exile, the new age, the 'resurrection', was coming into being; and if the new age was dawning, those who wanted to belong to it would (as in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah) have to repent. The story points up the true significance of what Jesus was doing, and the urgent need of those who were at present grumbling to recognize this significance. The five brothers at home correspond quite closely to the older brother in the prodigal son. 'Resurrection' is happening, but they cannot see it. The story takes for granted that the poor and outcast were rightly being welcomed into the kingdom, and it turns the spotlight on to the rich, the Pharisees, the grumblers: they, too, now needed to repent if they were to inherit the new day that would shortly dawn. They were refused the extra revelation of someone ongoing to them from the dead; the message of repentance was clear enough in Moses and the prophets.

The parable is therefore further strong evidence that 'repentance', in the senses already discussed, formed a central element in Jesus' proclamation. The basic story he was telling invited his hearers to see themselves as the true Israel, returning at last from exile, and turning back to their god as an essential part of the process."

 

[RND]

I was just curious, because Smith teaches that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is filled with hidden meanings,

It is.

Lazarus being Eliezer,

That's the symbol.

the rich man being nation Judah (wearing purple and fine linen signifying Judah's royalty and priesthood),

That's what it means. Now, can you imagine for just a second that one of those Pharisees in the crowd that Jesus was speaking to was dressed in purple and fine linen?

the brothers representing the 5 brothers of Judah (the guy not the nation, it all gets a little murky).

Exactly.

Now, keep this in mind Handy. A broken clock is right twice a day. So it is possible that Smith is right about these things. But I haven't got all my beliefs from him. I learned these things in the very first prophecy seminar I ever attended.

 

[RND]

Did I miss something? How do we equate adultery to the meaning of the following parable? Luke 16:31 seems to explain the meaning of the parable.

Sidenote: L.Ray Smith is a Universalist. His thoughts on the "rapture" are interesting though.

Only worthwhile if one believes in the rapture.

Actually, this story predates any Hellenistic beliefs. It dates back to the Babylonian captivity and their Babylonian Talmud. Jesus borrowed a story they would be familiar with and adapted to reflect whe He was trying to teach them.

(in my best Bill and Ted accent)

This is a most excellent explanation. :D

http://www.bibleexplained.com/Gospels/Luke/Lu16b.html

Most excellent! You do realize Vic that this is an extension of It Is Written ministries and the Seventh-day Adventist church?

Are you ready to convert yet Vic!

 

[handy]

Did I miss something? How do we equate adultery to the meaning of the following parable? Luke 16:31 seems to explain the meaning of the parable.

I tend to agree that verse 31 is the heart of the story.

The adultery part comes in in the greater context of the chapter, before the story of Lazarus, in verse 18. I've been maintaining that the adultery the Pharisee's took part in was leaving their first love, God and following after mammon. I believe the story is an cautionary tale to show what will happen to those who allow their love for money to trump and love for God. It is pointedly aimed at the Phariasees, to be sure.

RND looks at the adultery as the Pharisees following Greek paganistic beliefs of a dual "body and soul" nature of man.

RND, I was just curious. I don't agree with Smith's interpretation any more than I do yours. Perhaps, I'll read Vic's link and agree with that. But then again, maybe not. (It's only my Pastor that I follow like a sheeple. :nag )

You might call it "lazy Christianity" (well, as matter of fact, you did), but I'm not going to delve in and make a perfectly straightforward passage of Scripture all murky and mysterious, just because you say so. You said, "How, by letting the Bible speak for itself?" That is exactly what I'm doing, letting the Bible speak for itself. If Jesus wanted to rebuke and correct the Pharisees for adopting a "pagan" belief regarding the soul, I'm sure that it would be far more clear than wrapping it up in a discourse regarding the love of money. There is just no reason to switch the sin of the Pharisees from serving the god of mammon to adopting a Greek belief in the middle of the discourse.

 

[Vic C.]

Actually guys and gals, I wouldn't go as far as saying any of this is hidden; just not known by some. For instance, Lazarus and Eliezer are the same name in two different languages. Both basically mean, God helped.

Only worthwhile if one believes in the rapture.

L. Ray blows holes in conventional rapture theories.

You do realize Vic that this is an extension of It Is Written ministries and the Seventh-day Adventist church?

I am. But out of all the links I had referring to the Talmud, that one is the easiest for people to read and comprehend.

Are you ready to convert yet Vic!

Only when they drop some of their non conformist doctrines or when I die, whichever comes first.

Dora, I'm one who also questions my Pastor's teachings as well. :D

 

[RND]

Did I miss something? How do we equate adultery to the meaning of the following parable? Luke 16:31 seems to explain the meaning of the parable.

I tend to agree that verse 31 is the heart of the story.

The adultery part comes in in the greater context of the chapter, before the story of Lazarus, in verse 18. I've been maintaining that the adultery the Pharisee's took part in was leaving their first love, God and following after mammon. I believe the story is an cautionary tale to show what will happen to those who allow their love for money to trump and love for God. It is pointedly aimed at the Phariasees, to be sure.

RND looks at the adultery as the Pharisees following Greek paganistic beliefs of a dual "body and soul" nature of man.

I look at this aspect as key to understanding this segment of scripture as a parable. Certainly I agree that the totality of the verses should be considered. What Jesus is summing up in the last verse is simple. "If they won't believe the word of God that pointed to me and my coming as Messiah then how will you believe one (Jesus) that rose (is raised) from the dead?"

RND, I was just curious. I don't agree with Smith's interpretation any more than I do yours. Perhaps, I'll read Vic's link and agree with that. But then again, maybe not. (It's only my Pastor that I follow like a sheeple. :nag )

Careful, it's from us nasty Adventist!

You might call it "lazy Christianity" (well, as matter of fact, you did), but I'm not going to delve in and make a perfectly straightforward passage of Scripture all murky and mysterious, just because you say so.

Hey, I'm not asking you to. Go back and read the OP. I'm asking you to pick up your Bible and consider what other aspects of the Bible reveal.

You said, "How, by letting the Bible speak for itself?" That is exactly what I'm doing, letting the Bible speak for itself.

By not exploring the whole thing? What you are doing it taking one verse as literal and not examining the other aspects of what scripture reveals about these verses. That's simply not allowing the Bible to speak for itself.

If Jesus wanted to rebuke and correct the Pharisees for adopting a "pagan" belief regarding the soul, I'm sure that it would be far more clear than wrapping it up in a discourse regarding the love of money.

Um, that's where the adultery blast comes in Handy!

There is just no reason to switch the sin of the Pharisees from serving the god of mammon to adopting a Greek belief in the middle of the discourse.

Handy, I think what I would do it try to familiarize my self with the parable of the Shrewd Steward so you can better understand verse 13. Verse 13 has more to do with that parable than the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

 

[RND]

Only when they drop some of their non conformist doctrines or when I die, whichever comes first.

Such as?

 

[Vic C.]

That would be off topic and lead to all sorts of debates, not to mention how others would respond. Although I fellowship in a Baptist church, I am not very easily indoctrinated. Lets leave it at that, ok?

 

[RND]

That would be off topic and lead to all sorts of debates, not to mention how others would respond. Although I fellowship in a Baptist church, I am not very easily indoctrinated. Lets leave it at that, ok?

You're right. Off topic. Sorry for asking and attempting to derail my own thread. I must be :crazy

 

[handy]

Here is one problem I have with seeking after hidden meanings in straightforward texts: The "symbolizm" is too often arbitrary.

For instance, according to you RND (and apparently Smith as well) the "purple and fine linen" has a symbolic meaning, as does the name "Lazarus" and the 5 brothers.

Well, what of the fact that the rich man was "gaily living in splendor everyday"? What do the "sores"mean? What did the "gate" symbolize? Who were the "dogs"? What was the "tip of [Lazarus'] finger?" How does the "tip" differ from the "finger"? What was the flame? Since it obviously didn't mean torment, what does it mean? What was the "chasm"? In what way was it "fixed"? Who was the rich man's father? I mean if the brothers have symbolic meaning, surely the "father" does as well? What does it mean that they died?

In the other parables of Jesus, Jesus gave the meanings of the text. You brought up the "Lost Coin". We don't have to wonder what the coin represents, because Jesus told us what it meant: a "sinner who repents". We know that the "seed" in the parable of the sower is the word of God. We know that when He told of the two debtors, the debtor that "owed more" was a reference to the woman who had just anointed Him.

My point being, Jesus let us know what He meant. We really don't have to go seeking after "hidden" meanings.

I'm sorry, RND, in my own opinion, I still think that you feel it necessary to "spiritualize" this story in order to avoid the idea of eternal torment. I wonder how you "spiritualize" those cast into "outer darkness". (Matthew 8:12) I'm curious how one that has been annihilated has teeth to gnash or eyes to weep from.

 

[RND]

Here is one problem I have with seeking after hidden meanings in straightforward texts: The "symbolizm" is too often arbitrary.

That's why we seek the counsel of the scriptures.

For instance, according to you RND (and apparently Smith as well) the "purple and fine linen" has a symbolic meaning, as does the name "Lazarus" and the 5 brothers.

Exactly.

Well, what of the fact that the rich man was "gaily living in splendor everyday"?

Relates to the Jews being given the oracles of God. Frankly, I like the "fared sumptuously " translation better because it reveals more in terms of ingesting the word of God.

What do the "sores"mean?

Isa 1:6 From the sole of the foot even unto the head [there is] no soundness in it; [but] wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment.

Relates to the "lost" condition that the Pharisees thought all non-Jews were in.

What did the "gate" symbolize?

The gate represents the tabernacle which was the entrance point for anyone wishing to join with Israel. Gates were where people entered into the home.

Who were the "dogs"?

Gentiles.

What was the "tip of [Lazarus'] finger?" How does the "tip" differ from the "finger"?

Can't say.

What was the flame?

Symbolic of torment.

Since it obviously didn't mean torment, what does it mean?

Who said it didn't mean torment?

What was the "chasm"? In what way was it "fixed"?

The "gulf" represents the chasm that was required to be crossed from the wilderness to the promised land.

Who was the rich man's father?

Jacob.

I mean if the brothers have symbolic meaning, surely the "father" does as well?

Yep.

What does it mean that they died?

They were taken away when Israel was removed from the land, never to be seen again. But then again, these brothers are seen to still be living and not dead like the rich man was.

In the other parables of Jesus, Jesus gave the meanings of the text.

Not always.

You brought up the "Lost Coin". We don't have to wonder what the coin represents, because Jesus told us what it meant: a "sinner who repents".

You obviously don't know much about what was given to Jewish wife's when they were married. Also, Jesus is comparing the joy felt when a sinner repents to finding that of a valuable lost coin.

Luk 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

We know that the "seed" in the parable of the sower is the word of God. We know that when He told of the two debtors, the debtor that "owed more" was a reference to the woman who had just anointed Him.

Right.

My point being, Jesus let us know what He meant. We really don't have to go seeking after "hidden" meanings.

Then you're a "lazy Christian" in my mind because there are other very deep spiritual meanings all though out scripture where I have had people that have read the Bible 30 and 40 years say they learn something new everyday. They've read a verse a hundred times and never knew this or that.

Sorry Handy but reading the Bible is like opening Christmas presents everyday!

I'm sorry, RND, in my own opinion, I still think that you feel it necessary to "spiritualize" this story in order to avoid the idea of eternal torment.

No, I just need to read the Bible to come to the conclusion there is no such thing as eternal torment.

I wonder how you "spiritualize" those cast into "outer darkness". (Matthew 8:12)

Does "outer darkness" sound like a place where there are flames ? Don't flames make light?

I'm curious how one that has been annihilated has teeth to gnash or eyes to weep from.

Same way someone that has been given a life sentence in a state prison by a judge would cuss and fuss over there sentence or like the way they gnashed their teeth on Stephen. Oh, and Stephen was still alive!

Did you get all you answers you were looking for?