Examining Lazurus and the rich man

[Vic C.]

Hey Dora.

I can't answer all those questions. Maybe RND can. Maybe one day I will look for that exact passage in the Babylonian Talmud and then we could further dissect this.

It seems that what Jesus was telling them becomes clear when we read from Luke 15:3 to 16:31. It also seems to me that the passage in question means something to them and something else to some of us. Jesus explained most of His parables because the meaning to them was indeed hidden. He probably didn't explain the passage in question because it wasn't hidden to them. They would have known this time exactly what He was saying.

We, not being 1st. century Pharisees, do not have knowledge of their traditions and stories. So, we have to search for the meaning. Sorry if it brings us "out of the Bible". For instance, where in all the Bible do we learn about Abraham's bosom? Now that I think about this a little more, the Pharisees in a sense, were committing a sort of spiritual adultery.

Let me share another story from the Jerusalem Talmud: (keep in mind Rav is really Rabbi)

The story is told in the Talmud (Jerusalem, Nedarim, Ch. 9, 4) of Rav sending a messenger to a rich man, calling him to Court. The rich man was proud of his riches, and instead of coming to Rav immediately, he arrogantly sent a message to Rav saying: "Do you know how rich I am? All the camels of the Arabs would not be able to carry even the keys to my treasures."

When Rav received the message, he remarked that the rich man would soon be relieved of his riches. Very soon afterwards the king issued an order that all the rich man's possessions should be confiscated.

The rich man, thereupon, came running to Rav, begging his forgiveness. Rav forgave him on the spot, and prayed for him. A short while later the rich man's possessions were returned to him.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... sh/Rav.htm

Now I could easily "picture" another Great Rabbi ;) using this story and twisting the ending a bit to make His point.

 

[handy]

I can't answer all those questions. Maybe RND can.

And as a matter of fact he did, except for one: What was the "tip of [Lazarus'] finger?" How does the "tip" differ from the "finger"?

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!

Actually, we're not in disagreement about this, RND. Far better than Christmas presents, in fact! :yes But, just because someone finds what they think is a deep hidden meaning to a story, doesn't mean the hidden meaning is correct. The straightforward message in Luke 16, that of not from God to mammon is consistent and clear.

Maybe one day I will look for that exact passage in the Babylonian Talmud and then we could further dissect this.

That would be interesting.

 

[RND]

And as a matter of fact he did, except for one: What was the "tip of [Lazarus'] finger?" How does the "tip" differ from the "finger"?

Yea, I don't know that for now but I'm certain there's an answer in the scriptures for me to find.

[quote:2hpqz9sa]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!

Actually, we're not in disagreement about this, RND.[/quote:2hpqz9sa] That you're a lazy Christian?

Far better than Christmas presents, in fact! :yes

I was using a simple allegory, Whatever you choose is find with me.

But, just because someone finds what they think is a deep hidden meaning to a story, doesn't mean the hidden meaning is correct.

That's why we let the Bible answer itself, which it will.

The straightforward message in Luke 16, that of not from God to mammon is consistent and clear.

For you. You don't want to look into the deeper meanings as you have said so why do you think to tell others that have that they are wrong? Makes no sense frankly. It's like me telling someone that has studied a subject more than I have that I know more than they do. You've already said you have no such desire to examine scripture deeply and yet you purport to tell others that have they are wrong. Go figure! Frankly it's insulting.

[quote:2hpqz9sa]Maybe one day I will look for that exact passage in the Babylonian Talmud and then we could further dissect this.

That would be interesting. [/quote:2hpqz9sa]Would you listen that's the question.

 

[handy]

It's like me telling someone that has studied a subject more than I have that I know more than they do.

I hope you're not assuming from any of my posts that I haven't studied this passage as much as you.

You've already said you have no such desire to examine scripture deeply ...

hmmm, not exactly.

...and yet you purport to tell others that have they are wrong. Go figure! Frankly it's insulting.

Please don't make the mistake of assuming that I haven't studied Luke because I'm not agreeing with you here. That too would be, insulting.



Vic, earlier you said, "It seems that what Jesus was telling them becomes clear when we read from Luke 15:3 to 16:31. It also seems to me that the passage in question means something to them and something else to some of us."

This is interesting. I find a change in the discourse between Luke 15 and Luke 16. We know from Luke 15:1-2 that Jesus is speaking with tax-gatherers and sinners and that the Pharisees were listening in (and grumbling about it). For the duration of 15, Jesus is speaking parables of redemption and how much God desires the repentance of those who are strayed. This is the common theme of the story of the shepherd who searches and rejoices when he finds the lost sheep, the woman who finds the lost coin and the prodigal son.

Then, in Luke 16 , when Jesus shifts from speaking to the crowd to speaking to the disciples (although the crowd, at least the Pharisees are still present) the focus shifts from those who are lost but repent (ie the tax-gatherers and sinners) to those who are unrighteous (the Pharisees). The parable of the unrighteous steward and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus seem very pointed towards the Pharisees, both parables focusing on those who love money more than God.

What is it about the passage that seems to you to mean one thing to them and another to us?

 

[handy]

[quote:gcmz3x58]Maybe one day I will look for that exact passage in the Babylonian Talmud and then we could further dissect this.

That would be interesting. [/quote:gcmz3x58]

Would you listen that's the question.

Listen? Sure, I'll listen. :yes

Agree wholeheartedly with whatever Vic digs up? That remains to be seen. :nod

 

[prough91]

So if someone doesn't believe what RND believes they're a "lazy Christian". Nice. That's what Jesus would want us to do.

 

[RND]

So if someone doesn't believe what RND believes they're a "lazy Christian". Nice. That's what Jesus would want us to do.

No, I didn't say that. Nor should you infer it. My comment regarding "lazy Christianity" was directed towards Handy's comments regarding searching the word deeper.

I will say this however. If someone thinks a superficial glance at scripture isn't being "lazy" and that required digging deeper isn't needed then all I can say is that man's religion is sorely lacking.

 

[handy]

I will say this however. If someone thinks a superficial glance at scripture isn't being "lazy" and that required digging deeper isn't needed then all I can say is that man's religion is worthless.

Again, we're in agreement. I am glad that no one is superficially glancing at the text under discussion.

 

[RND]

I will say this however. If someone thinks a superficial glance at scripture isn't being "lazy" and that required digging deeper isn't needed then all I can say is that man's religion is worthless.

Again, we're in agreement. I am glad that no one is superficially glancing at the text under discussion.

Oh, I'm not so sure about that.

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.

The foregoing quotes seem to come from a made up mind, not one interesting is digging in the scriptures and getting their hands dirty.

 

[francisdesales]

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.

Uh, well, I tried to give you a wider lattitude, (Torah can refer to the entire Law) but you are reducing drastically the amount of Scriptures that refers to any afterlife. It is quite limited to "the God of Abraham," etc, which says very little about the after life or the state of existence of Abraham et.al.

Furthermore, it is pretty clear that the Sadducees, who had access to the Torah, didn't quite interpret those passages in that manner, indicating that they saw precious little to back up the contention of life after death.

It's crystal clear.

Merely denying it proves nothing... The Sadducees are evidence that it is not "crystal clear". As Drew has stated earlier, Jesus was a master of cryptic teaching. The Sadducees did not see the "crystal clear" meaning. It is only so with our Lord's interpretation - of ONE passage... It is only reading in a particular tradition and paradigm that unlocks the OT that points to the New and Christ.

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

I disagree. Job knew he would be resurrected.

Perhaps you missed my statement about the theology of rewards in the afterlife???
Job is not "much of the OT Scriptures". Job was written rather late. Job is the result of Jewish tradition that begun to realize the shortcomings of Deuteronimistic theology (rewards/punishment in the here and now)

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

Only through the eyes of LATE Jewish and Christian tradition. Not to the men on the ground.

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

I see this as the will of God, since God could have revealed it in a much less cryptic manner that even the Sadducees could have seen.

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

Where in the Lucan passage is Jesus chiding the Pharisees for pagan beliefs? In WHOSE opinion are they "pagan", anyways? YOURS. The Pharisees would be the LAST group to be accused of adopting "Pagan" beleifs...

And "man is body and soul" has nothing to do with a "monothetsitc vs pagan" belief, anyway...

What "totality"???

All the books of the Bible.

:biglaugh

You crack me up...

 

[francisdesales]

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.

Ah, that makes sense, I would agree that it is a story to teach something rather than an historical account of the banter in the next life between two actual people!

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:...

I can see this as a possible interpretation. But I don't see the forgiveness (as in the Prodigal) as key to this - the rich man is the main charecter and there is none for him...

In context, I believe Handy is correct and it is a discussion about money. I would like to add that perhaps Jesus is warning his audience that there ARE consequences (despite being unseen) to living the life of the rich man. Much of Jewish Tradition considered the rich man as blessed by God. Men are blessed in this life, or punished in this life (one example that this continued to be the paradigm of the Jews of Jesus' day was the Apostle's reaction to the Blind man from birth in John. "Whose sin was it, Lord"?)

I believe Jesus is reminded them of something WE take for granted, but was "new" to the Jews of the time: Don't be fooled by the rich man's life - God will punish Him in the next world. This is an act of faith - since we don't SEE God punishing the rich man, nor does it seem just that the poor man live such a life. It is my opinion that this parable explains that God indeed will reward and punish... Even those who were "blessed", as per man's opinion, with a wealthy and powerful life.
This seems more in line with what Luke speaks of as a whole - A Gospel that overturns man's expectations (Like Mary's Magnificat)

Thoughts?

Regards

 

[handy]

Straightforward and superficial are hardly the same thing. "Jesus wept" is about as straightforward a verse there is in the Bible, but it's hardly superficial.

As for adding meaning to the five brothers, show me, from the Scriptures, that Jesus is referring to Judah's brothers here. So far you have given no Scriptural to back up what you are saying here. I know you probably think you have, but you really haven't. Just as there is no reason why the texts that you quoted from Jeremiah and Ezekiel should be applied to the Pharisees having some kind of pagan belief in a body/soul concept.

So, show me from Scriptures. But, do it right. Just don't cobble some texts together, ignore their contexts and make them say what you want them to say. I could just as easily "prove" from the Scriptures that God wants us to commit suicide if we get money in an ill-gotten way because Matthew 27:5 says that Judas "threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself" and Luke 10:37 says, "Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."

This kind of reminds me of a thread a while back in which a discussion came up about whether or not the trees in Eccl 2:5 were literal trees or were to be interpreted as God's people. My point being that while we can take some verses and look at other verses and can cobble them together to try to gain a "deeper" understanding, often we lose sight of what God's word is telling us clearly and concisely. Sometimes, trees are plants that grow from the ground. Sometimes a rich man is a rich man who has five brothers. And, especially in this day and age, God's people play the harlot with mammon.

Mammom was the god that the Pharisees left God for, not a supposed "pagan" idea that the body is separate from the soul. I know this because the immediate context of the passage tells me this. Verse 14 states it outright that they were "lovers of money". This isn't superficial by any means, but it is straightforward. There is nothing in the context of Luke 16 that points to the adultery of the Pharisees being a believe in a pagan concept. Nor is there anything in the context that shows that the rich man is symbolic for Judah or that Lazarus is symbolic for Eliezer. If you want to say that the Scriptures teach this, then you are going to have to show the Scriptures that make the connection.

 

[handy]

And "man is body and soul" has nothing to do with a "monothetsitc vs pagan" belief, anyway...

If it does, then the Apostle Paul fell prey to the same pagan belief...

"Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thess 5:23)

I believe Jesus is reminded them of something WE take for granted, but was "new" to the Jews of the time: Don't be fooled by the rich man's life - God will punish Him in the next world. This is an act of faith - since we don't SEE God punishing the rich man, nor does it seem just that the poor man live such a life. It is my opinion that this parable explains that God indeed will reward and punish... Even those who were "blessed", as per man's opinion, with a wealthy and powerful life.
This seems more in line with what Luke speaks of as a whole - A Gospel that overturns man's expectations (Like Mary's Magnificat)

Thoughts?

I think this falls in with exactly what Jesus said in verse 15: "And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God."

 

[RND]

Uh, well, I tried to give you a wider lattitude, (Torah can refer to the entire Law) but you are reducing drastically the amount of Scriptures that refers to any afterlife.

The Torah refers to the first five books, the tanakh refers to all the OT scriptures.

It is quite limited to "the God of Abraham," etc, which says very little about the after life or the state of existence of Abraham et.al.

Furthermore, it is pretty clear that the Sadducees, who had access to the Torah, didn't quite interpret those passages in that manner, indicating that they saw precious little to back up the contention of life after death.

Tjhe Pharisees had access to the same documents. I wouldn't look to either group as a stellar example of understanding scripture.

It's crystal clear.

Merely denying it proves nothing...

I didn't denu anything Francis.

The Sadducees are evidence that it is not "crystal clear".

As I said, they aren't such a good example.

As Drew has stated earlier, Jesus was a master of cryptic teaching. The Sadducees did not see the "crystal clear" meaning. It is only so with our Lord's interpretation - of ONE passage... It is only reading in a particular tradition and paradigm that unlocks the OT that points to the New and Christ.

Um, I don't think understanding scripture hinges on "a particular tradition and paradigm" in my view.

Perhaps you missed my statement about the theology of rewards in the afterlife???

Mo, I saw it.

Job is not "much of the OT Scriptures". Job was written rather late. Job is the result of Jewish tradition that begun to realize the shortcomings of Deuteronimistic theology (rewards/punishment in the here and now)

Job is said to be the oldest book in the whole Bible.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_o ... k_of_Bible

http://www.av1611.org/amazing.html

Only through the eyes of LATE Jewish and Christian tradition. Not to the men on the ground.

No, I think men of Jesus' day and before could certainly understand the Bible had they wanted to. I see you working here and maneuvering for your particular "Christian tradition" but I can't accept it.

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

I see this as the will of God, since God could have revealed it in a much less cryptic manner that even the Sadducees could have seen.

What more could God have done?

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

Where in the Lucan passage is Jesus chiding the Pharisees for pagan beliefs?

I'd say verses 14 to 18 establish the point.

In WHOSE opinion are they "pagan", anyways? YOURS.

No, the Bibles.

The Pharisees would be the LAST group to be accused of adopting "Pagan" beleifs...

Umm, no they wouldn't.

And "man is body and soul" has nothing to do with a "monothetsitc vs pagan" belief, anyway...

A man is a "living soul".

What "totality"???

All the books of the Bible.

:biglaugh

You crack me up...

I bet. I don't stand on a narrow ledge.

 

[handy]

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

Where in the Lucan passage is Jesus chiding the Pharisees for pagan beliefs?

I'd say verses 14 to 18 establish the point.

Luke 16:14-18 (New American Standard Bible)

14Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him.
15And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. 16"The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17"But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail. 18"Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

I see where the Pharisees were lovers of money. I don't see where the pagan beliefs come into these verses.

 

[RND]

I see where the Pharisees were lovers of money.

Sure. Scripture tells us that in many parts of the Gospel.

I don't see where the pagan beliefs come into these verses.

Again, adultery/harlotry are symbols for religious infidelity. That is a common theme through out scripture. In verse 18 Jesus specifically reminds the Pharisees of their spiritual infidelity.

So again, lovers of money refers to covetousness. Adultery/harlotry refers to spiritual infidelity. This is most dramatically seen in Rev. 17 where the whore of Babylon is called the "mother of all harlots". This is a church system that is unfaithful to God and includes her unfaithful daughters.

 

[handy]

Yes, I understand that in many places adultery refers to spiritual infidelity. What I don't agree with is that spiritual infidelity always means following after pagan beliefs. In this case, spiritual infidelity can be placing the love of money above the love of God. Hence, the repeated reference to mammon in the passage.

 

[LaCrum]

Ah, that makes sense, I would agree that it is a story to teach something rather than an historical account of the banter in the next life between two actual people!

Although I don't think this is an actual event, I do think it is a representation of the afterlife in addition to other lessons mentioned in this thread which can be drawn from the story.

My thought is: Why would Jesus use this as an example if such a place didn't exist? If there really isn't eternal fiery condemnation for those who turn away from God, why use it in a parable? There are other ways he could have conveyed this message, why then make up a fictitious hell like that? It just doesn't add up.

 

[RND]

Yes, I understand that in many places adultery refers to spiritual infidelity.

Progress.

What I don't agree with is that spiritual infidelity always means following after pagan beliefs.

Great! Show me where it means something else.

In this case, spiritual infidelity can be placing the love of money above the love of God.

That's called coveting. I'll tell you what, if you can show me one other place in the Bible where the love of money is equated with adultery/harlotry I'd consider it. Get to digging cause you won't find it.

Hence, the repeated reference to mammon in the passage.

It's not repeated regarding verses 19-31 but deals with 1-8.

Get crak'a lackin'!

 

[glorydaz]

Ah, that makes sense, I would agree that it is a story to teach something rather than an historical account of the banter in the next life between two actual people!

Although I don't think this is an actual event, I do think it is a representation of the afterlife in addition to other lessons mentioned in this thread which can be drawn from the story.

My thought is: Why would Jesus use this as an example if such a place didn't exist? If there really isn't eternal fiery condemnation for those who turn away from God, why use it in a parable? There are other ways he could have conveyed this message, why then make up a fictitious hell like that? It just doesn't add up.

You're right...It doesn't add up. Jesus would never have told of such an event if it were not true. He even spoke of Abraham...who was waiting until Jesus was resurrected to bring the OT believers forward into glory. Their sins had been atoned for at the cross...not before. If this was simply a parable...He certainly misled many, and we can rest assured He didn't do that.