Lazarus and the Rich Man

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mickey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey, make up your mind(s). Do you want to hear from everyone, or not? You asked for different interpretations; I gave you mine.
You gave your opinion on Lazarus and the rich man. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Now if you would like to talk to people about the meaning of parables in general—start a thread.

You are hi-jacking this one and I will report you if you keep it up.
 
As I said its an interesting debate but you’re reading way much into it.
And as I said…I am only reading it in the way of the saints and church fathers.
One thing we know for sure is the Catholic Church has no official interpretation of this parable and we are free to interpret it any way we want as long as such interpretation does not contradict Catholic doctrine.
If that is true, then you are saying that Roman Catholics are free to interpret this differently than the church fathers. Fair enough.

I’ll stick to the Church Fathers! 👍
 
First of all this does have to do with purgatory.
No it doesn’t.
why would the rich man even ask Abraham or Lazarus to help him if he did not believe in intercession.
Uh…desparation? Panic? Disbelief?
Next what good would Lazarus’s intercession or Abraham’s do if he indeed was not in purgatory.
They did not intercede. Remember?
But it could be worse.
What is worse than hell?
 
You gave your opinion on Lazarus and the rich man. Thank you. I appreciate it.

Now if you would like to talk to people about the meaning of parables in general—start a thread.

You are hi-jacking this one and I will report you if you keep it up.
Oooh! Report your heart out. In your OP, you asked for different interpretations. Giving answers could hardly be characterized as hijacking. What I really think is that you are simply wrong, you realize it, but you refuse to admit it.

If the interpretation is allegorical, and you can put any spin on it that you please, then you can’t tell the Catholics that they are wrong because Parables point to sacred truths in a literal and metaphorical sense (your words). If it is literal, then the Catholics here are correct that it supports the idea of purgatory. The real deal is that you had your hat handed to you pretty quickly in this thread, and you don’t want to admit it.
 
The following comes from the Catholic Haydock Bible Commentary:

**Ver. 19. There was a certain rich man, &c. By this history of the rich man and Lazarus, he declares that those who are placed in affluent circumstances, draw upon themselves a sentence of condemnation, if seeing their neighbour in want, they neglect to succour him. (St. Cyril, in Cat. Græc. patrum.) — He that hath the substance of this world, and shall see his brother in need, and shut up his bowels against him, how doth the charity of God abide in him? (1 John iii. 17.) A received tradition of the Jews informs us, that this Lazarus was a beggar, then at Jerusalem, suffering in the most wretched condition of poverty, and infirmity: him our Saviour introduces, to manifest more plainly the truth of what he had been saying (St. Cyril, in Cat. Græc. patrum.) — By this, we are not to understand that all poverty is holy, and the possession of riches criminal; but, as luxury is the disgrace of riches, so holiness of life is the ornament of poverty. (St. Ambrose) — A man may be reserved and modest in the midst of riches and honours, as he may be proud and avaricious in the obscurity of a poor and wretched life. — Divers interpreters have looked upon this as a true history; but what is said of the rich man seeing Lazarus, of his tongue, of his finger, cannot be literal: souls having no such parts. (Witham) — In this parable, which St. Ambrose takes to be a real fact, we have the name of the poor mendicant; but our Lord suppresses the name of the rich man, to signify that his name is blotted out of the book of life: besides, the rich man tells Abraham, that he has five brothers, who were probably still living; wherefore, to save their honour, our Lord named not their reprobated brother.

Ver. 22. Abraham’s bosom.[3] The place of rest, where the souls of the saints resided, till Christ had opened heaven by his death. (Challoner) — It was an ancient tradition of the Jews, that the souls of the just were conducted by angels into paradise. The bosom of Abraham (the common Father of all the faithful) was the place where the souls of the saints, and departed patriarchs, waited the arrival of their Deliverer. It was thither the Jesus went after his death; as it is said in the Creed, “he descended into hell,” to deliver those who were detained there, and who might at Christ’s ascension enter into heaven. (Calmet) See 1 Peter iii. 19. — “Many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham.” (Matthew viii. 11.)

Ver. 25. It appears from Philo, (de Execrat. p. 9, 37 b.) that the Jews not only acknowledged the existence of souls, and their state of happiness or misery after this life, but also that the souls of the saints and patriarchs interceded with God for their descendants, and obtained from them the succour they stood in need of. (Calmet)

Ver. 26. Between us and you is fixed a great chaos, or gulf; i.e. God’s justice has decreed, that the bad should forever be separated from the good. We may here take notice that the Latin and Greek word, (ver. 22) translated hell, even in the Protestant translation, cannot signify only the grave. (Witham)

Ver. 27. In this parable we are taught an important truth, viz. that we must not expect to learn our duty from the dead returning to life, nor by any other extraordinary or miraculous means, but from the revelation of truths, which have already been made known to us in the Scriptures, and from those to whom the tradition of the Church has been committed, as a most sacred deposit. These, say the Fathers, are the masters from whom we are to learn what we are to believe, and what to practise. (Calmet)**

🤷 Sounds like hell to me.

God Bless,
Michael
 
I am perplexed about something. It seems that many Roman Catholics have a major misunderstanding about the meaning of this parable. Some people think that it is a proof of purgatory.
No - rather, it is evidence of “third states” in the afterlife, other than Heaven and Hell. Protestants say that Purgatory cannot exist because there are no “third states” in the afterlife. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man shows Lazarus (not the Rich Man) to be in a “third state” - the Bosom of Abraham. From there, he can see into Hell, which is where the Rich Man is.

I think that the interpretations you see coming from many lay Catholics about Purgatory being mentioned in this parable are based upon a misunderstanding of this interpretation.

All it shows is the existence of third states. It doesn’t actually show the existence of Purgatory. But it shows that the “no third states” argument against Purgatory doesn’t hold water.

We see Purgatory alluded to in the parable where the slave accepts forgiveness from the King, but then doesn’t offer it to his fellow slave. He then goes to “prison” (Purgatory) to work off his debt.
 
Oooh! Report your heart out. In your OP, you asked for different interpretations. Giving answers could hardly be characterized as hijacking. What I really think is that you are simply wrong, you realize it, but you refuse to admit it.

If the interpretation is allegorical, and you can put any spin on it that you please, then you can’t tell the Catholics that they are wrong because Parables point to sacred truths in a literal and metaphorical sense (your words). If it is literal, then the Catholics here are correct that it supports the idea of purgatory. The real deal is that you had your hat handed to you pretty quickly in this thread, and you don’t want to admit it.
Actually it even happened before this thread. He was saying that there was no purgatory. Thats how I met the wonderful man:wink: When I said the Parable could indeed point to purgatory, I got the famous start another thread. So he did it for me. Now purgatory is really the reason that this was started.

Hey Mickey, Got a question for you. How do you know if Abraham prayed for the rich man or not. Did he say no, go to hell! I don’t recall that. I agree that Abraham showed him where his sin was. But I do not remember Abraham sending him to he double toothpicks. :nope: Did he say your sin is not forgiven. You are to go to mr devils house, do not pass go. :hmmm:
 
very few of the ECF I believe have touched this topic. My guess is since the gates of Heaven were closed, Christ freed those just from the underworld (Hades). I think St. John Chyrostom said to chain the devil to Hell eternally. I don’t know.
Catechism of the Catholic Church **633 **Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - *Sheol *in Hebrew or *Hades *in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”: "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.
 
No - rather, it is evidence of “third states” in the afterlife, other than Heaven and Hell. Protestants say that Purgatory cannot exist because there are no “third states” in the afterlife. The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man shows Lazarus (not the Rich Man) to be in a “third state” - the Bosom of Abraham. From there, he can see into Hell, which is where the Rich Man is.

I think that the interpretations you see coming from many lay Catholics about Purgatory being mentioned in this parable are based upon a misunderstanding of this interpretation.

All it shows is the existence of third states. It doesn’t actually show the existence of Purgatory. But it shows that the “no third states” argument against Purgatory doesn’t hold water.

We see Purgatory alluded to in the parable where the slave accepts forgiveness from the King, but then doesn’t offer it to his fellow slave. He then goes to “prison” (Purgatory) to work off his debt.
Here’s another thought

Abraham and Lazarus can’t enter heaven from where they are either. Jesus hasn’t redeemed the world yet at the time Jesus tells the parable… Yet I sense they are in comfort. Therefore, it’s possible they (Lazarus and Abraham,) aren’t in purgatory either, although I won’t say it’s impossible.

The rich man isn’t exactly wailing and grinding his teeth described as gehenna… I would suggest based on the few words spoken by him, the rch man exibits faith, hope & Charity, virtues I always thought are absent in hell. Even though he is in great discomfort, and knows for sure Abraham can’t help him, I don’t have the sense the rich man is condemned. If he was, I don’t think he would even be allowed to converse with Abraham and vice versa.
 
Here’s another thought

Abraham and Lazarus can’t enter heaven from where they are either. Jesus hasn’t redeemed the world yet at the time Jesus tells the parable… Yet I sense they are in comfort. Therefore, it’s possible they (Lazarus and Abraham,) aren’t in purgatory either, although I won’t say it’s impossible.

The rich man isn’t exactly wailing and grinding his teeth described as gehenna… I would suggest based on the few words spoken by him, the rch man exibits faith, hope & Charity, virtues I always thought are absent in hell.
Who can say what is possible in Hell? (Other than getting out, of course. But it seems as if the Rich Man is not going to be getting out of where ever he is.)
Even though he is in great discomfort, and knows for sure Abraham can’t help him, I don’t have the sense the rich man is condemned. If he was, I don’t think he would even be allowed to converse with Abraham and vice versa.
It’s hard to say. In any case, either there is one third state, or two third states in this parable - neither of which is Purgatory.
 
Interesting. Most people in this thread have referred to it as a parable, but are taking literal meanings out of it. The question should be, I believe, what is it a parable OF?

The parables in Luke 15 and 16 are being told to a mixed group of people: Jesus’ disciples, people who were following him, and the Pharisees.

Who does the rich man represent in the parable? ISRAEL
Who does Lazarus represent (Lazarus = Eleazar)? GENTILES

What happens? Israel is separated from Abraham, and Gentiles are with him (wherever they happen to be).

What gives us these clues?

Who doesn’t listen to the Law and the Prophets? ISRAEL
Who sits “outside the gate”? (Gentiles - not allowed inside the Temple, etc.)

What ultimately happens? Gentiles are allowed in, Israel is kicked out, loses its place, etc…

This is pretty simple. Being a parable, we should be looking for what Jesus really meant, not trying to create or support literal doctrines from a parable.
Your interpretation is possible, but IMO too restrictive.

Mt 13:
10* Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” 11 And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. 12* For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away

13"Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

14"In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,
‘YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND;
YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE;
15 FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.’
16"( But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear. 17"For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

If one isn’t given the grace to see, hear and understand, they won’t see, hear or understand the mesage… That isn’t JUST for Isreal but anyone.
 
Here’s another thought

Abraham and Lazarus can’t enter heaven from where they are either. Jesus hasn’t redeemed the world yet at the time Jesus tells the parable… Yet I sense they are in comfort. Therefore, it’s possible they (Lazarus and Abraham,) aren’t in purgatory either, although I won’t say it’s impossible.

The rich man isn’t exactly wailing and grinding his teeth described as gehenna… I would suggest based on the few words spoken by him, the rch man exibits faith, hope & Charity, virtues I always thought are absent in hell. Even though he is in great discomfort, and knows for sure Abraham can’t help him, I don’t have the sense the rich man is condemned. If he was, I don’t think he would even be allowed to converse with Abraham and vice versa.
That was my point. Also remember Abraham never said he would or could not help him. Think about this What did you Dad say to you when you were wrong. The same thing our Father Abraham said to the rich man. ANother wards he showed him his sin. He more or less said remember how you treated Lazarus, Now the shoe is on the other foot. He never said I can or will not pray and interceed for you. All I see him doing is showing him his sin.
 
Here is another thought what is hell. Again some say a place, some say a state. But here is the point hell is total separation from God. That is the big thing here. Now in the parable it said there was a type of division. BUt one could see another. different sides. but it never said total separation. When one is condemed to hell they are gone. They refused God and his grace. Now if the rich man refuses God and refuses to believe in God, why in the world would he want his brothers to be with God then? Is this total rejection of God. I sure don’t see it.
 
I see the complete opposite.
You explain the rich man isn’t showing charity as follows
: Chaldean
It is precisely the opposite of love: selfishness. The reason this is so is because of the warning Jesus gave:41 And **whosoever shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged around his neck, and he were cast into the sea.**Scandal is the key. This caution to scandal is not only towards children, but everyone. The rich man knows in his heart that the life he led was scandalous to his brethren and if they go to hell, his suffering will increase in Hell. Therefore, what appeared to be divine charity, is actually not. It is simply a form of eternal self-preservation because Hell has various states damnation, like Heaven has various states of glory.
I’ve granted in my earlier post that hell is possibly where the rich man is by saying I could be wrong on him being in purgatory. Isn’t hell a place of zero contact between the righteous and unrighteous? Isn’t it a perfect barrier, a perfect seperation in ALL respects?.. The fact there was ANY communication between the 2 sides at all, suggests to me the rich man was NOT in a place of absolute seperation and despair, Otherwise he wouldn’t be allowed to ask for ANYTHING or communicate with the righteous in anyway. The barrier between realities would be THAT complete in ALL respects…but in this case it wasn’t
 
You explain the rich man isn’t showing charity as follows

I’ve granted in my earlier post that hell is possibly where the rich man is by saying I could be wrong on him being in purgatory. Isn’t hell a place of zero contact between the righteous and unrighteous? Isn’t it a perfect barrier, a perfect seperation in ALL respects?.. The fact there was ANY communication between the 2 sides at all, suggests to me the rich man was NOT in a place of absolute seperation and despair, Otherwise he wouldn’t be allowed to ask for ANYTHING or communicate with the righteous in anyway. The barrier between realities would be THAT complete in ALL respects…but in this case it wasn’t
That again is what I was always taught.
 
I repeat–that is a terrible interpretation to say that he is suddenly concerned for his brothers. He is concerned for himself. He scandalized his brothers. Read what St Nicholai says in post #9.
What makes you assert the concern for his brothers was “sudden”… The parable just plain doesn’t tell us one way or the other about his relationship with his brothers while he was on earth.

I read St. Nicholai’s commentary in your post #9. It gives his personal rationale regarding the rich man’s motivation in seeking help for his brothers. But that’s all it is - his personal thoughts. It certainly doesn’t have the authority of a teaching, or interpretation, that must be accepted. I can find nothing in the parable text to imply that motivation on the rich man’s part. However, if one holds that the rich man is in hell, it becomes necessary to find/propose an uncharitable motivation to explain the rich man’s concern.

I don’t have any problem with St. Nicholai giving that as an interpretation. A problem only arises when someone insists that is the only interpretation – that to hold a contrary opinion would mean one was in error. St. Nicholai was not speaking infallibly!
He is praying to no one. You are doing damage to the reading.
Perhaps your understanding of prayer is different than mine. The rich man is speaking to Abraham and asking help for his brothers. We do the same thing - speak to those who are in heaven and ask for their help. We call it praying to the saints. I thought the Orthodox prayed to saints also. Am I mistaken?

Nita
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top