Is Lazarus and the Rich Man a parable?

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

This "parable" is found in Luke 16... but it is really a parable?

The beggar in this passage is named Lazarus. Elsewhere in the gospels, Lazarus is a real person - a friend of Jesus. Jesus stays at his house, mourns his death, and even brings back him back from the dead. Is this the same Lazarus? We can't prove whether it was or not. But at the end of the "parable," the rich man asks for Lazarus to be resurrected and sent to his brothers. Is this a hint that it's the same person?

We are told that the Rich Man was "clothed in purple and fine linen." Purple is typically reserved for royalty. Linen is the wardrobe of the priests. And fine purple linen is the wardrobe of the High Priest (Exo 28). The Rich Man also tells us that he has five brothers (v.28). Now the High Priest at the time was Caiaphas, who did indeed have five brothers, all of which famously served as High Priests in the 1st century. It seems like a foregone conclusion that the Rich Man is either Caiaphas or one of his brothers.

So the parable most likely refers to two real people. Is it really a parable?

-Jarrod

 

[Josheb]

What do you make of Luke 16:26?

And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set, so that those who want to go over from here to you will not be able, nor will any people cross over from there to us.

???

Such a chasm would, presumably preclude conversation between one inhabitant of one realm with any inhabitant in the other. Given the knowledge the realm of the living and the realm of the dead are likewise separated, it would also imply the request to send a message from Abraham's realm to that of those still alive on earth is unrealistic and irrational. Presumably an individual who has stood before God in judgment and received his sentence while still knowledgeable of Abraham's blessed existence knows the foolishness of his own request.

 

[3 Resurrections]

So the parable most likely refers to two real people. Is it really a parable?

No, it's not a parable. It's a not-so-subtle condemnation of the greedy high priests of the family of Annas.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

What do you make of Luke 16:26?

And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set, so that those who want to go over from here to you will not be able, nor will any people cross over from there to us.

???

Such a chasm would, presumably preclude conversation between one inhabitant of one realm with any inhabitant in the other. Given the knowledge the realm of the living and the realm of the dead are likewise separated, it would also imply the request to send a message from Abraham's realm to that of those still alive on earth is unrealistic and irrational. Presumably an individual who has stood before God in judgment and received his sentence while still knowledgeable of Abraham's blessed existence knows the foolishness of his own request.

I think it's a reference to something extra-Biblical. The Bible doesn't give us a whole lot to go when it comes to the afterlife, but the (pseudepigraphal) 1st Book of Enoch spells out 4 destinations for the deceased in chapter 22. It isn't very long, so I'll just give you the whole chapter:

And thence I [Enoch] went to another place, a mountain of hard rock. And there was in it four hollow places, deep and wide and very smooth. How smooth are the hollow places and deep and dark to look at.

Then Raphael, one of the holy angels who was with me, answered and said unto me: 'These hollow places have been created for this very purpose, that the spirits of the souls of the dead should assemble therein, yea that all the souls of the children of men should assemble here. And these places have been made to receive them till the day of their judgement and till their appointed period [till the period appointed], till the great judgement (comes) upon them.'

And I saw (the spirit of) a dead man making suit, and his voice went forth to heaven and made suit. And I asked Raphael the angel who was with me, and I said unto him: 'This spirit which maketh suit, whose is it, whose voice goeth forth and maketh suit to heaven ?'

And he answered me saying: 'This is the spirit which went forth from Abel, whom his brother Cain slew, and he makes his suit against him till his seed is destroyed from the face of the earth, and his seed is annihilated from amongst the seed of men.'

Then I asked regarding it, and regarding all the hollow places: 'Why is one separated from the other?' And he answered me and said unto me: 'These three have been made that the spirits of the dead might be separated. And such a division has been made (for) the spirits of the righteous, in which there is the bright spring of water. And such has been made for sinners when they die and are buried in the earth and judgement has not been executed on them in their lifetime. Here their spirits shall be set apart in this great pain till the great day of judgement and punishment and torment of those who curse for ever and retribution for their spirits. There He shall bind them for ever. And such a division has been made for the spirits of those who make their suit, who make disclosures concerning their destruction, when they were slain in the days of the sinners. Such has been made for the spirits of men who were not righteous but sinners, who were complete in transgression, and of the transgressors they shall be companions: but their spirits shall not be slain in the day of judgement nor shall they be raised from thence.' Then I blessed the Lord of glory and said: 'Blessed be my Lord, the Lord of righteousness, who ruleth for ever!'

As a matter of curiousity, Hebrews 12:24 also seems to contain a reference to this same passage.

-Jarrod

 

[Josheb]

No, it's not a parable. It's a not-so-subtle condemnation of the greedy high priests of the family of Annas.

It can't be both?

 

[3 Resurrections]

It can't be both?

Well, the typical objection of those who don't think this is a parable is that there are specific names given in this story. Abraham is never named in any of the parables...nor Lazarus, who was the literal Lazarus whom Jesus was going to raise from the dead not long after Christ told this story.

The "rich man's gate" was the temple gate. The "crumbs" from the "rich man's table" probably referred to the shewbread. The "fine linen" and the "purple", as @Jarrod said above, was a definite clue we are seeing a high priest as this "rich man". We know quite well that Annas had five sons who served as high priests in the first century and one son-in-law Caiphas. Caiphas was the "rich man" who wanted to send a message to his "father's house" at the temple to warn his five brothers (brothers in law).

The high priest "fared sumptuously" every day" of the best of temple fare. And I believe the "great gulf fixed" between Abraham and the rich man was the cavernous Kidron Valley between the temple and the Mount of Olives where Christ was going to bodily return to receive the resurrected ones to Himself - like Lazarus.

Abraham told this "rich man" (Caiphas) that even if one was raised from the dead (like Lazarus was raised by Christ) the brothers of the "rich man" (Caiphas' 5 brothers in law) would not repent. This was actually true of the high priests of the house of Annas, who wanted to kill Lazarus after his resurrection because the people were believing on Jesus because of Lazarus. It didn't matter to them that Lazarus was raised from the dead. They were unimpressed with this miracle - they hated Christ that much, even though their preserved writings of Moses and the prophets had testified about Christ's coming.

 

[Josheb]

I think it's a reference to something extra-Biblical.

I disagree.

The Bible doesn't give us a whole lot to go when it comes to the afterlife, but the (pseudepigraphal) 1st Book of Enoch spells out 4 destinations for the deceased in chapter 22. It isn't very long

I am well familiar with the text of Enoch, many other pseudepigraphic texts, and the Mediterranean mythologies and religions of the New Testament era.

As a matter of curiousity, Hebrews 12:24 also seems to contain a reference to this same passage.

-Jarrod

Great.

No extra-biblical content can be considered to contradict scripture. No extra-biblical content can be considered authoritative over scripture, either. Even if Jesus was referencing Enoch, it cannot be considered as Jesus teaching anything conflicting with all else he taught (Old or New). That is why I started with the specified text and the specified text along. The chasm(s) would logically seem to indicate Jesus' words are not literal. If such a chasm exists as the one plainly stated in the passage, then (logically) it precludes certain conditions, and I don't need Enoch to understand that. Such a rendering makes the passage conflict with itself.

However, if the text is seen as a story consciously intended to communicate something more diverse and significant than its literal words the above problem(s) don't exist.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

The chasm(s) would logically seem to indicate Jesus' words are not literal. If such a chasm exists as the one plainly stated in the passage, then (logically) it precludes certain conditions, and I don't need Enoch to understand that. Such a rendering makes the passage conflict with itself.

Can you expand on that? I don't see the contradiction.

 

[Hobie]

This "parable" is found in Luke 16... but it is really a parable?

The beggar in this passage is named Lazarus. Elsewhere in the gospels, Lazarus is a real person - a friend of Jesus. Jesus stays at his house, mourns his death, and even brings back him back from the dead. Is this the same Lazarus? We can't prove whether it was or not. But at the end of the "parable," the rich man asks for Lazarus to be resurrected and sent to his brothers. Is this a hint that it's the same person?

We are told that the Rich Man was "clothed in purple and fine linen." Purple is typically reserved for royalty. Linen is the wardrobe of the priests. And fine purple linen is the wardrobe of the High Priest (Exo 28). The Rich Man also tells us that he has five brothers (v.28). Now the High Priest at the time was Caiaphas, who did indeed have five brothers, all of which famously served as High Priests in the 1st century. It seems like a foregone conclusion that the Rich Man is either Caiaphas or one of his brothers.

So the parable most likely refers to two real people. Is it really a parable?

-Jarrod

It is the same as the other parables, no true believer is looking to go to Abrahams bosom. Jesus, as all His parables, it was used to make a.point, and He makes it crystal clear at the end.

 

[David1701]

This "parable" is found in Luke 16... but it is really a parable?

The beggar in this passage is named Lazarus. Elsewhere in the gospels, Lazarus is a real person - a friend of Jesus. Jesus stays at his house, mourns his death, and even brings back him back from the dead. Is this the same Lazarus? We can't prove whether it was or not. But at the end of the "parable," the rich man asks for Lazarus to be resurrected and sent to his brothers. Is this a hint that it's the same person?

We are told that the Rich Man was "clothed in purple and fine linen." Purple is typically reserved for royalty. Linen is the wardrobe of the priests. And fine purple linen is the wardrobe of the High Priest (Exo 28). The Rich Man also tells us that he has five brothers (v.28). Now the High Priest at the time was Caiaphas, who did indeed have five brothers, all of which famously served as High Priests in the 1st century. It seems like a foregone conclusion that the Rich Man is either Caiaphas or one of his brothers.

So the parable most likely refers to two real people. Is it really a parable?

-Jarrod

Parables never have named people in them. The people in this narrative were not only named, but they were people known in the Bible.

 

[Josheb]

Well, the typical objection of those who don't think this is a parable is that there are specific names given in this story. Abraham is never named in any of the parables...nor Lazarus, who was the literal Lazarus whom Jesus was going to raise from the dead not long after Christ told this story.

The "rich man's gate" was the temple gate. The "crumbs" from the "rich man's table" probably referred to the shewbread. The "fine linen" and the "purple", as @Jarrod said above, was a definite clue we are seeing a high priest as this "rich man". We know quite well that Annas had five sons who served as high priests in the first century and one son-in-law Caiphas. Caiphas was the "rich man" who wanted to send a message to his "father's house" at the temple to warn his five brothers (brothers in law).

The high priest "fared sumptuously" every day" of the best of temple fare. And I believe the "great gulf fixed" between Abraham and the rich man was the cavernous Kidron Valley between the temple and the Mount of Olives where Christ was going to bodily return to receive the resurrected ones to Himself - like Lazarus.

Abraham told this "rich man" (Caiphas) that even if one was raised from the dead (like Lazarus was raised by Christ) the brothers of the "rich man" (Caiphas' 5 brothers in law) would not repent. This was actually true of the high priests of the house of Annas, who wanted to kill Lazarus after his resurrection because the people were believing on Jesus because of Lazarus. It didn't matter to them that Lazarus was raised from the dead. They were unimpressed with this miracle - they hated Christ that much, even though their preserved writings of Moses and the prophets had testified about Christ's coming.

Was my view of the text read (Post #2 and #7)?

 

[Josheb]

Can you expand on that? I don't see the contradiction.

Sure.

The text in question states there is a chasm between "us" (Abraham and Lazarus) and "you" (the rich man).

Luke 16:25-26
"But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that 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. 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.'"

No one can come from where Abe and Laz are to where the rich man is buried in Hades. While it is not an explicit part of this passage, we know from other scripture there is a chasm between the dead and those living on earth, as well. Therefore, the rich man's request Abe or Laz send someone to give him a drop of water is impossible and so too is the request to send someone to go speak to the rich man's kin is impossible!

If anyone could return from the dead and preach the gospel, then Jesus is unnecessary.

Jesus, the teller of the story, certainly knows ALL of this. So, either Jesus is stupid, Jesus is mistaken (possibly because he's mis-informed about the nature of hell, the grave, the chasm, etc.), he's willfully deceitful (lying), or the story is not real; it's a parable. The first three can be excluded because Jesus is all-knowing and perfect.

Therefore, the story is intended to communicate something more significant than the literal meaning of its words.

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

No one can come from where Abe and Laz are to where the rich man is buried in Hades. While it is not an explicit part of this passage, we know from other scripture there is a chasm between the dead and those living on earth, as well. Therefore, the rich man's request Abe or Laz send someone to give him a drop of water is impossible and so too is the request to send someone to go speak to the rich man's kin is impossible!

If anyone could return from the dead and preach the gospel, then Jesus is unnecessary.

Jesus literally raised Lazarus the brother of Mary and Martha from the dead. Doesn't that count for crossing the chasm between paradise and earth?

Apparently many Jews believed because of this miracle. The Jewish leaders response was to seek an opportunity to kill Lazarus. So just as Jesus predicted (?) they did not believe even though one came from the dead to preach to them.

-Jarrod

 

[Bob Carabbio]

This "parable" is found in Luke 16... but it is really a parable?

The beggar in this passage is named Lazarus. Elsewhere in the gospels, Lazarus is a real person - a friend of Jesus. Jesus stays at his house, mourns his death, and even brings back him back from the dead. Is this the same Lazarus? We can't prove whether it was or not. But at the end of the "parable," the rich man asks for Lazarus to be resurrected and sent to his brothers. Is this a hint that it's the same person?

We are told that the Rich Man was "clothed in purple and fine linen." Purple is typically reserved for royalty. Linen is the wardrobe of the priests. And fine purple linen is the wardrobe of the High Priest (Exo 28). The Rich Man also tells us that he has five brothers (v.28). Now the High Priest at the time was Caiaphas, who did indeed have five brothers, all of which famously served as High Priests in the 1st century. It seems like a foregone conclusion that the Rich Man is either Caiaphas or one of his brothers.

So the parable most likely refers to two real people. Is it really a parable?

-Jarrod

Which "authoritative opinion" / Rank Speculation about this issue would you like???

 

[Wycliffes_Shillelagh]

Which "authoritative opinion" / Rank Speculation about this issue would you like???

Hmmmm... I chafe at "authoritative opinions" when they're enclosed in quotation marks, so I guess I'll try the rank speculation?

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Hmmmm... I chafe at "authoritative opinions" when they're enclosed in quotation marks, so I guess I'll try the rank speculation?

Wise Choice.

 

[CherubRam]

This "parable" is found in Luke 16... but it is really a parable?

The beggar in this passage is named Lazarus. Elsewhere in the gospels, Lazarus is a real person - a friend of Jesus. Jesus stays at his house, mourns his death, and even brings back him back from the dead. Is this the same Lazarus? We can't prove whether it was or not. But at the end of the "parable," the rich man asks for Lazarus to be resurrected and sent to his brothers. Is this a hint that it's the same person?

We are told that the Rich Man was "clothed in purple and fine linen." Purple is typically reserved for royalty. Linen is the wardrobe of the priests. And fine purple linen is the wardrobe of the High Priest (Exo 28). The Rich Man also tells us that he has five brothers (v.28). Now the High Priest at the time was Caiaphas, who did indeed have five brothers, all of which famously served as High Priests in the 1st century. It seems like a foregone conclusion that the Rich Man is either Caiaphas or one of his brothers.

So the parable most likely refers to two real people. Is it really a parable?

-Jarrod

Hell, Luke 16:19-31. | Christian Forum

Hell, Luke 16:19-31. I give thanks to you Heavenly Father for hearing my complaint. The Rich Man and Lazarus Luke 16:19. "There was a ric

christianforum.boards.net

 

[Mr GLee]

This "parable" is found in Luke 16... but it is really a parable?

The beggar in this passage is named Lazarus. Elsewhere in the gospels, Lazarus is a real person - a friend of Jesus. Jesus stays at his house, mourns his death, and even brings back him back from the dead. Is this the same Lazarus? We can't prove whether it was or not. But at the end of the "parable," the rich man asks for Lazarus to be resurrected and sent to his brothers. Is this a hint that it's the same person?

We are told that the Rich Man was "clothed in purple and fine linen." Purple is typically reserved for royalty. Linen is the wardrobe of the priests. And fine purple linen is the wardrobe of the High Priest (Exo 28). The Rich Man also tells us that he has five brothers (v.28). Now the High Priest at the time was Caiaphas, who did indeed have five brothers, all of which famously served as High Priests in the 1st century. It seems like a foregone conclusion that the Rich Man is either Caiaphas or one of his brothers.

So the parable most likely refers to two real people. Is it really a parable?

-Jarrod

Hi, I would offer I understand that a little differently.

Real people are used to represent the word of God the same with the counterfeiter he can use Lazarus . certainly not the Lazarus who did arise as a new creation. I would say that kind of idea would not be interpreting tool that could help interpret the mysteries of God. Names from the beginning have been given meaning by God . Adam red earth etc

God uses Moses and Elijah to represent all thing written in the law and prophets. (sola scriptura) In the Luke 16 parable as a continuation from the last chapter He uses Moses and the prophets. Moses to represent the law and the prophets the fulfilment.

Matthew 17:3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him ................... (the father communing with the Son of man, Jesus )

The rich man signifies the wisdom of this world under the god of it, Satan. The comparison of the parable uses Mammon Satan dark wisdom verses. the light of his word Moses and the prophets I would think teaching us no man can serve two teaching masters coming from one unseen eternal God.

I would call it the parable of two masters. Similar to two Sons (the first and second born) which I would call the Parable of the waiting loving Holy Father. having serval gospel understanding.

Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

 

[CherubRam]

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable, and it has no parabolic qualities. Nor is it a teaching in Judaism. And neither is Hell a teaching in Judaism. Someone is putting words in Christ mouth.

 

[Josheb]

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable, and it has no parabolic qualities. Nor is it a teaching in Judaism. And neither is Hell a teaching in Judaism. Someone is putting words in Christ mouth.

??????????

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable, and it has no parabolic qualities.

Care to evidence that position given the facts....

Nor is it a teaching in Judaism. And neither is Hell a teaching in Judaism. Someone is putting words in Christ mouth.

can you see how Post 19 contradicts itself? In one sentence the claim is that the passage has no parabolic qualities but in the next sentence there is the report of parabolic qualities = it's not a Judaic teaching and there is no hell in Judaism. Those would be parabolic attributes!

Nor is it a teaching in Judaism.

And yet Jesus is teaching it.

And neither is Hell a teaching in Judaism.

I agree. I have posted extensively on how Sheol is the Hebraic/Judaic perspective, hos it is likely Jesus spoke in Aramaic and did not use the language of "he" or "hades," AND how Jesus, a Jew, taught a much different paradigm. That does not change the fact the teaching has to do with the grave and Judaism did have beliefs about the grave that were incorrect.

Someone is putting words in Christ mouth.

Hmmmm.... That means either the gospel record is unreliable, or the inspired author was not inspired and is lying.