Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus

[mapleoak]

Was Jesus making reference to Himself in the following passage? Is it a foreshadowing of Christ’s own resurrection?

“But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.”

Also, I tend to think that the absence of a name for the rich man versus the riteous man being named Lazarus illustrates the relative unimportance of those who are damned and that they are thus forgotten (of their own choosing). Thoughts?

 

[Static]

Was Jesus making reference to Himself in the following passage? Is it a foreshadowing of Christ’s own resurrection?

The wicked & unbelieving people would neither repent nor be converted by such a miracle. Look at what happened in Jn 11. What was the name of the person that Jesus raised ?
What did these people want to do to him afterwards
Jn 12:9ff, ?

Also, I tend to think that the absence of a name for the rich man versus the riteous man being named Lazarus illustrates the relative unimportance of those who are damned and that they are thus forgotten (of their own choosing). Thoughts?

I remember that Scott Hahn, for obvious reasons, had said that the rich man was in a state of purging, not hell. The points he made made sense.

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[mapleoak]

The wicked & unbelieving people would neither repent nor be converted by such a miracle. Look at what happened in Jn 11. What was the name of the person that Jesus raised ?

True, He could have been referencing raising Lazarus from the dead. But there are many who remain unbelievers in spite of Christ’s own resurrection. A miracle of far greater importance than the raising of Lazarus.

I remember that Scott Hahn, for obvious reasons, had said that the rich man was in a state of purging, not hell. The points he made made sense.

Being a parable, the conversation between Abraham and the rich man was made possible in order to make a point.

 

[davidv]

True, He could have been referencing raising Lazarus from the dead. But there are many who remain unbelievers in spite of Christ’s own resurrection. A miracle of far greater importance than the raising of Lazarus.

Being a parable, the conversation between Abraham and the rich man was made possible in order to make a point.

I believe one of the points of the story is that in our fallen nature we can be so hard-hearted that even spectacular miracles will have have a saving effect.

 

[Static]

True, He could have been referencing raising Lazarus from the dead. But there are many who remain unbelievers in spite of Christ’s own resurrection. A miracle of far greater importance than the raising of Lazarus.

Sorry, I was just giving an example. Did not intend for Jesus to be excluded. As you stated, the miracle that far exceeds any other miracle, still was not enough for many wicked & unbelievers to come to repentance or conversions.

Being a parable, the conversation between Abraham and the rich man was made possible in order to make a point.

This point being the one you mentioned earlier ?

Also, I tend to think that the absence of a name for the rich man versus the righteous man being named Lazarus illustrates the relative unimportance of those who are damned and that they are thus forgotten (of their own choosing).

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[mapleoak]

Sorry, I was just giving an example. Did not intend for Jesus to be excluded. As you stated, the miracle that far exceeds any other miracle, still was not enough for many wicked & unbelievers to come to repentance or conversions.

Not arguing, it just seems there are probably more ways than one to look at it.

This point being the one you mentioned earlier ?

Well, no, the point of the parable itself would seem to be more consistent with

For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger and you took me not in…Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment

That Abraham was talking with one of the damned (nameless and forgotten) was a device used to illustrate this point.

 

[Static]

Well, no, the point of the parable itself would seem to be more consistent with
Quote:
For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger and you took me not in…Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment
That Abraham was talking with one of the damned (nameless and forgotten) was a device used to illustrate this point.

That is where I think the hard part of the parable is. If this is eternal punishment ( Hell ), can someone ask for intercession or call someone ‘Father’ being that Hell is total separation from
God ?

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[Milliardo]

That is where I think the hard part of the parable is. If this is eternal punishment ( Hell ), can someone ask for intercession or call someone ‘Father’ being that Hell is total separation from God ?

This is the same point raised by Scott Hahn–if this is hell as we traditionally were told to be, then why did the rich man show concern for his brothers and ask Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them? Someone in hell would not have such a concern, and would rather urge his brothers imitate him. That is why he posited the notion that this is an allusion to Purgatory, not hell.

 

[mapleoak]

This is the same point raised by Scott Hahn–if this is hell as we traditionally were told to be, then why did the rich man show concern for his brothers and ask Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them? Someone in hell would not have such a concern, and would rather urge his brothers imitate him. That is why he posited the notion that this is an allusion to Purgatory, not hell.

But what if Christ in His parable was only symbolically making it possible for this conversation to happen as a way of presenting or describing the fate of the damned and finality of eternal destruction? That there is no possibility of receiving help from the other side or vice-versa. The Rich Man was able to help Lazarus and had every opportunity given to him to accomplish that while he was on Earth. But alas, he squandered that opportunity and he realizes full well that his fate was of his own choosing. His concern for his brothers may be an eternal affliction which he must dwell on knowing that he once had the opportunity to aid his brothers and that he chose this path in spite of he himself having Moses and the prophets available to him.

 

[Milliardo]

But what if Christ in His parable was only symbolically making it possible for this conversation to happen as a way of presenting or describing the fate of the damned and finality of eternal destruction?

Since Jesus is the Truth, why would He make this to be only symbolic? Again, Hahn points out that Jesus describes the conditions Lazarus and the rich man are in pretty well as to rule out that this was just a parable.

The Rich Man was able to help Lazarus and had every opportunity given to him to accomplish that while he was on Earth. But alas, he squandered that opportunity and he realizes full well that his fate was of his own choosing.

This is another point which Scott Hahn did raise–we do not know exactly the state of the rich man before he died. All we are given is that at the most, he must be committing a sin of omission (by not knowing Lazarus’ condition), to at the very least he didn’t do enough to help Lazarus. In both cases, such a thing does not exactly warrant hell, as we can see he did try to help in some way.

His concern for his brothers may be an eternal affliction which he must dwell on knowing that he once had the opportunity to aid his brothers and that he chose this path in spite of he himself having Moses and the prophets available to him.

This still does not answer why he would show such a concern, and why he would ask Abraham to send Lazarus to warn then. As stated, souls in hell would not show such concern nor would have any reason to warn others of their fate; that the rich man showed concern shows some sort of remorse on his part, a condition which would fit more a soul in Purgatory than one in hell.

 

[Static]

This is another point which Scott Hahn did raise–we do not know exactly the state of the rich man before he died.

Good point ! Only God knows our heart. How do we not know if this man repented of this sin or that he might not even had known what he did was in fact a sin at all ? *Num 15:27ff *

Just as in Mt 18:21-35 in verse 34 the master handed the wicked servant over to the torturers until he paid back the whole debt. Now, after he pays back the whole debt, will he go to hell ?

Good points by both of you !

May God Bless, Static ( 1 Tim 1:15 )

 

[mapleoak]

Since Jesus is the Truth, why would He make this to be only symbolic? Again, Hahn points out that Jesus describes the conditions Lazarus and the rich man are in pretty well as to rule out that this was just a parable.

But it is also possible that the conversation was permitted in this instance, actually taking place, and not merely symbolic. Even so, using symbolism does not mean lying.

This is another point which Scott Hahn did raise–we do not know exactly the state of the rich man before he died. All we are given is that at the most, he must be committing a sin of omission (by not knowing Lazarus’ condition), to at the very least he didn’t do enough to help Lazarus. In both cases, such a thing does not exactly warrant hell, as we can see he did try to help in some way.

But the following passage indicates that neglecting ones fellow man does warrent eternal damnation. Why would Jesus contradict Himself here?

For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger and you took me not in…Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me. And these shall go into everlasting punishment

This still does not answer why he would show such a concern, and why he would ask Abraham to send Lazarus to warn then.

Because he is being tormented with the fact that he was able to help while he was alive but did not. He is seeking to relieve his own agony, which does not happen. This is not true concern, but an expression of self interest.

As stated, souls in hell would not show such concern nor would have any reason to warn others of their fate; that the rich man showed concern shows some sort of remorse on his part, a condition which would fit more a soul in Purgatory than one in hell.

Again, he is trying to bring comfort to himself, as he is now eternally tormented by the fact that he saw his fellow man hungry and did nothing.
As for purgatory, is there a fixed great chaos preventing aid to the souls in purgatory?

And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you cannot, nor from thence come hither

This would seem to contradict Church doctrine that aid can be given to those in Purgatory. The rich man could not so much as get a drop of water for his tongue.

 

[Ruthie]

“souls in hell would not show such concern nor would have any reason to warn others of their fate”

Perhaps it is because I am a new Catholic, but I am confused. Why would a soul in hell not experience remorse?

I would imagine that remorse is one of the mental torments we would experience should we condemn ourselves to hell. And why would a soul experiencing remorse not want to help those he/she left behind? Being unable to would be (as MapleOak said earlier) another eternal torment.

Ruthie

 

[rwoehmke]

A good starting point for this parable would be the question, who is Jesus speaking to? Then, what is the is the situation that brought on the parable or what is Jesus responding to? How does the parable address that situation and who is that would see themselves in the context of the story? What lesson is Jesus trying to convey to them?

After that there is a lot of good stuff above as too how it applies to us personally or others alive today; i.e. what characters in the story might we be and what lesson does that teach us? There are several human characters in the parable, which one best fits you?

 

[rcjones]

In the shadows, the parable is speaking about Christ putting an end to judgment. You can see much of it in the double entendre:

The rich man is the divine nature of Christ. He wears the color purple which is that of the judge. Gold is the color of kings, but they also wear purple because they too sit in judgment. He wears the fine linen burial clothes of Christ and is called “son” by the Father.

v19 “fared sumptuously” also means “rejoiced magnificently”.

Lazarus also represents Christ, but in the role of the priest and in the flesh. Lazarus comes from Eliezer who was the high priest. Being “full of sores” hints at leprosy which represents sin, as Christ was made to be sin for us.

Bread is the word of God, and Christ in the flesh only had a portion of the divine word that he had in the heavenlies since he had “emptied himself”. And the “dogs”, those who return to their own “vomit” and sin, opened his wound. The word for “licked” is “separation” and is the same imagery of the parting of the water, splitting of the rock and tearing of the veil.

And it came to pass that both natures of Christ died and the priest was carried to the Father (to continue to make intercession for us) and the judge role of Christ remained dead. This is the same imagery of the axe being removed from the brook. Judgment being removed from the water.

The rich man’s plea, has the double meaning of :24. And he called and said, Father, have mercy on me and send the High priest , that he may immerse the uttermost parts of the works of the dual natured man in the word and “end my judgment” for I am setting like the sun in a flash.

I think it is the death cry of the power of the law of sin and death.

These should be taken as rough observations of the shadow. And the riddles are intended to draw you into meditation on the works of Christ.

Eze 17:2 Son of man, put forth a riddle <02420>, and speak a parable unto the house of Israel;

 

[Strategery]

Was Jesus making reference to Himself in the following passage? Is it a foreshadowing of Christ’s own resurrection?

IMO Christ is definitely referring to himself as the one being raised from the dead.

Disagree with Hahn’s position (stated a few posts above) that this is purgatory and not hell. Abraham says that the rich man’s brothers already have Moses and the prophets, and they won’t believe even if one is raised from the dead. We know that hell (not purgatory) is the destination for one who doesn’t believe. The rich man is pleading that they do not join him there.

Also note that the rich man is being tormented in the netherworld, and that the chasm separating one side from the other can’t be crossed. IMO that definitely does not describe purgatory.

 

[Milliardo]

But it is also possible that the conversation was permitted in this instance, actually taking place,

Yes, actually this is also the point of Scott Hahn–that it indeed took place, and is not merely a parable

Even so, using symbolism does not mean lying.

Sorry, I didn’t really make that clear; what my point is that Jesus wouldn’t make things up, so He goes straight to the point

But the following passage indicates that neglecting ones fellow man does warrent eternal damnation. Why would Jesus contradict Himself here?

We don’t necessarily know if the rich man intentionally neglected Lazarus or not; he might not be aware of him in the first place, which would be a sin of omission, not a sin of commission then. Or as indicated in the passage, Lazarus was brought leftovers to him, indicating that the rich man did something for him, but wasn’t enough. In any case, there’s not much evidence to warrant him to be in hell as we see in the passage.

Because he is being tormented with the fact that he was able to help while he was alive but did not. He is seeking to relieve his own agony, which does not happen.

One, a soul in hell cannot seek relief. Another thing is the recognition and even respect the rich man accords Abraham and Lazarus (contrast this with how the devil mocks Jesus when he attempted to tempt Him). The third point I have already made–a soul in hell would not show concern for the living, but would do all it could to follow him to condemnation.

This is not true concern, but an expression of self interest.

We are not explicitly shown here of this, apart from him asking for relief. Incidentally, souls in Purgatory ask for relief as well through our prayers and supplications–another indication that the rich man is in Purgatory, not hell.

As for purgatory, is there a fixed great chaos preventing aid to the souls in purgatory? This would seem to contradict Church doctrine that aid can be given to those in Purgatory. The rich man could not so much as get a drop of water for his tongue.

Thus he asks Abraham for relief through Lazarus; this indicates that he is in Purgatory, not hell.

 

[Strategery]

One, a soul in hell cannot seek relief.

What’s the basis for this thought? Is this in the catechism?

 

[Milliardo]

IMO Christ is definitely referring to himself as the one being raised from the dead.

Disagree with Hahn’s position (stated a few posts above) that this is purgatory and not hell. Abraham says that the rich man’s brothers already have Moses and the prophets, and they won’t believe even if one is raised from the dead. We know that hell (not purgatory) is the destination for one who doesn’t believe. The rich man is pleading that they do not join him there.

Also note that the rich man is being tormented in the netherworld, and that the chasm separating one side from the other can’t be crossed. IMO that definitely does not describe purgatory.

Scott Hahn’s view can be read here: zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/sts.html and the part, which I quote, where he points out thus: Let’s turn now to Luke 16, verses 19 through 31…** **He says, “Send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue for I am in anguish in this flame.” That’s why I would suggest this may well refer, not to hell fire and eternal torment, but purgatorial fire belonging to a soul who through neglect of the corporal works of mercy ends up going to summer school for a long time. He cries, “Father Abraham, have pity on me.” And then Abraham replies, “My child.” Not you accursed reprobate, you son of Satan, you despicable worm, you viper. No, "my child,’ Abraham replies…

 

[Nickkname]

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus illustrates Luke’s concern with Jesus’ attitude toward the rich and the poor. The reversal of the fates of the rich man and Lazarus illustrates the teachings of Jesus in Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain”.

The oldest Greek manuscript of Luke dating from ca. A.D. 175-225 records the name of the rich man as an abbreviated form of “Nineveh,” but there is very little textual support in other manuscripts for this reading. “Dives” of popular tradition is the Latin Vulgate’s translation for “rich man.”

“The netherworld” means the underworld, the place of the dead.

Verses 30-31 are a foreshadowing in Luke’s gospel of the rejection of the call to repentance even after Jesus’ resurrection.

Source: vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PWZ.HTM