Is the rich man in hell or purgatory?

[englands123]

JustLoL ,

You assume much my friend. No one knows when Hell was created.

Scripture speaks of two locations as places of torment. Both places are commonly called “hell.” Hades is the current place of departed spirits who are not with the Lord, that is, those who never accepted the forgiveness that God offers in Jesus Christ. The [rich man] in [Luke 16] describes his current location as a place of torment as the result of fire (verses 23–24).
The second place of torment is Gehenna or the [lake of fire], which will be the final place of punishment for those who die in their sins. Of course, whatever the differences between Hades and the lake of fire, one will probably be no better than the other for those who are experiencing them. In popular usage, [ hell ] is somewhat of an amalgamation of the two biblical terms.

The most important question is not when hell was created but how to avoid it and Jesus is trying to explain this in words.

 

[JustLOL]

The most important question is not when hell was created but how to avoid it and Jesus is trying to explain this in words.

Ok…but out of curiosity, what just what Jesus trying to explain in words? Because this is central to the “take away” of Yesterday’s Gospel message.

 

[Bithynian]

The most important question is not when hell was created but how to avoid it and Jesus is trying to explain this in words.

Yes, I think this is important. Parables are parables for a reason: they are a narrative form that allows the inclusion of somewhat realistic characters, simplified environments and short plots to treat one or two significant concerns in a thoughtful manner.

An issue - which we’re seeing slightly in this thread - is when we attempt to interpret the parabolic aspects of a parable as some kind of proposition of doctrine.

As an another example, I’ve read of unusual debates about whether it is in fact possible for those in heaven and hell (or purgatory) to communicate across the “chasm” as Abraham and the rich man did. Strange theories abounded, including the use of angels as carrier pigeons.

 

[Inquiry]

In the homily this week the priest used this parable as a jumping off point to talk about praying for those in purgatory. So I suspect that this question is one that has been discussed quite a bit over the years.

 

[JustLOL]

In the homily this week the priest used this parable as a jumping off point to talk about praying for those in purgatory.

Ah, but whether this fictional “rich man” in the parable ended up in Purgatory or Hell, what was the sin that got him there, and what can we do to avoid it?

 

[englands123]

I can only assume greed played a huge part and perhaps he thought God would not notice.

 

[Inquiry]

Ah, but whether this fictional “rich man” in the parable ended up in Purgatory or Hell, what was the sin that got him there, and what can we do to avoid it?

He built up his treasures on earth rather than in heaven. Among other things, this parable is illustrating the difference between earthly treasure and heaven. The rich man had only the earthly kind and Lazarus only the heavenly, so when they died only one of them had anything waiting.

Also note that Abraham implied that the rich man and his brothers did not listen to Moses and the Prophets, which would indicate that there is a rule the rich man already knew but did not follow. Given that Lazarus was stated as being at the gate, that means the rule was likely “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Like most of Jesus’ parables this one works multiple levels. It turns the social philosophy of the time upside down, it underscores part of his teaching (“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth…”), it reframes discussion of God and Israel, and it foreshadows future miracles.

 

[Prodigal1984]

That is true.
Why did he name the man Lazarus? Maybe it was the Lazarus he raised and he is describing his time before he was brought back to life?

 

[Inquiry]

That is true.
Why did he name the man Lazarus? Maybe it was the Lazarus he raised and he is describing his time before he was brought back to life?

Well the Lazarus he raised (Lazarus of Bethany) was not a beggar covered in sores, but the brother of Martha and Mary.

Considering that the parable ends with the words 'If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead,’ it is entirely possible Jesus named the beggar Lazarus to hint at his future miracle.

 

[JustLOL]

He built up his treasures on earth rather than in heaven. Among other things, this parable is illustrating the difference between earthly treasure and heaven. The rich man had only the earthly kind and Lazarus only the heavenly, so when they died only one of them had anything waiting.

Building earthly treasure is no sin. It may be difficult for the rich to be righteous, but not impossible. Its all about how we use our wealth.

In the parable, the mythical Lazarus lies at the front door of the nameless rich man. The rich man steps over him, assumedly, ignoring Lazarus’ plight and poverty.

Joseph of Arimathea was a wealthy man, but purchased a burial plot for a proper burial of our Lord.

Both were rich, but Joseph displayed charity and compassion, and Luke’s rich man only cared about himself.

So, again, mere wealth is not the sin, but what we fail to do with earthly riches certainly is a sin of omission.

 

[Inquiry]

Exactly. That’s why the problem isn’t building up treasure on earth, it is building up treasure on earth rather than in heaven.

 

[goout]

All of us have probably walked past a person in distress. We do that out of suspicion or out of prudent judgment that we might be taken advantage of by panhandlers etc…
But this rich man has a practiced indifference that was accumulated day after day. The parable is not about making one-off mistakes, nor is it about the accumulation of wealth.

It is about vice, which is the practice of the thing. Vice is the antithesis of virtue, which also the practice of the thing in question.
In this case the vice is indifference, or complacency. You don’t become habitually numb to the plight of others by accident.

 

[englands123]

We come in to the world with nothing and leave with nothing earthly either.

This is why Jesus so many times warns us , not to put Earthly gifts before God or our neighbours…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The damned in hell can still care for their loved ones, can’t they?

There are a couple explanation for this I’ve heard.

#1: It’s just an allegory, meant to teach a lesson, not a theological discussion on the nature of Hell.

#2: The rich man’s desire remained intensely selfish, as he would rather see someone else damned that his family.

 

[Bithynian]

Why did he name the man Lazarus?

It’s a Hellenisation of the Hebrew name אֶלְעָזָר (El’yazar or Eleazer), which means “God is my help”.

While it could be a historical person, I’m not inclined to interpret it as such. It is more likely - in line with the overall structure of the discourse as a parable - to be a moniker that characterises the beggar whose help is God compared to man whose help is in riches. Rather like St Luke addressing his gospel and Acts to the generic θεόφιλος (theophilus), “friend of God”.

If Luke wanted to, he could’ve named the rich man “Sherzarus”, hellenised from the Hebrew עֹשֶׁרְעָזָר (Yosher’azar). But of course, I just made this word up just then!

 

[goout]

Prodigal1984:

Why did he name the man Lazarus?

It’s a Hellenisation of the Hebrew name אֶלְעָזָר (El’yazar or Eleazer), which means “God is my help”.

While it could be a historical person, I’m not inclined to interpret it as such. It is more likely - in line with the overall structure of the discourse as a parable - to be a moniker that characterises the beggar whose help is God compared to man whose help is in riches. Rather like St Luke addressing his gospel and Acts to the generic θεόφιλος (theophilus), “friend of God”.

If Luke wanted to, he could’ve named the rich man “Sherzarus”, hellenised from the Hebrew עֹשֶׁרְעָזָר (Yosher’azar). But of course, I just made this word up just then!

Another profound element of the parable is the rich man has no name. He has no identity other than he is rich and indifferent.
It seems to me that is an element of hell, to have lost your identity as a beloved of the God who knows you by name.

 

[Prodigal1984]

Rather like St Luke addressing his gospel and Acts to the generic θεόφιλος ( theophilus ), “friend of God”.

I always thought Theophilus was a real person who may have been the underwriter who sponsored the costs for publishing Luke’s Gospel and Acts.
It was quite expensive to create writings at the time especially the size these are. We are talking a few grand just to create one copy of a gospel or letter. You would have to hire a scribe and pay a carrier. I really thought Theophilus was the person who paid the expenses and was probably a well off follower of Christ.
People think the letters of 2 and 3 John are short but they are actually quite normal for a letter of that time period. Letters like Paul to the Romans or 1 and 2 Corinthians are very long for the period. Would have cost a lot of money to produce.

 

[Bithynian]

I really thought Theophilus was the person who paid the expenses and was probably a well off follower of Christ.

There is definitely a strong basis of evidence that Theophilus is a historical person. At the same time, I think it’s also legitimate to interpret it as a generic reference to all θεόφιλοι “friends of God”. It has rich layers of meaning, and I wouldn’t want to exclude either the historical or the rhetorical!

It’s a very curious name nonetheless. It has no direct correspondence to any pre-Christian Greek name insofar as I’m aware. It could be a translation of the Hebrew “Reuel” (also “friend of God”). But it’s rather uncommon in the NT for Hebrew names to be directly translated to Greek, more often it is transliterated according to Hellenistic pronunciation.

 

[Prodigal1984]

There is definitely a strong basis of evidence that Theophilus is a historical person. At the same time, I think it’s also legitimate to interpret it as a generic reference to all θεόφιλοι “friend s of God”.

Yah definitely could be a sort of code name of some sort. I’m sure people weren’t running wanting their identities known when the persecutions were occurring.
Kind of like how Rome is referred to as Babylon.

 

[signit]

Gorgias:

The damned in hell can still care for their loved ones, can’t they?

There are a couple explanation for this I’ve heard.

#1: It’s just an allegory, meant to teach a lesson, not a theological discussion on the nature of Hell.

[edit]

Just to strengthen this argument, I once read something similar, that it’s not intended as an exact description of hell, but something else.

Also, in our homily this weekend, the priest stressed that this was an example of an act of omission rather than commission (as others have said) and linked it to the first reading, in which the author warns others about falling into sin and says that we have an obligation to do so.