Parable of Rich Man and Lazarus

[Strategery]

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…

To clarify, I’m asking if this is the church’s teaching or Hahn’s supposition – that one in hell wouldn’t potentially ask for some kind of relief.

In the Golden Chain compiled by Thomas Aquinas, the Church Fathers disagree with Hahn. See the link below and scroll down to the last half of Luke 16 for the discussion.

catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Luke16.php

 

[Strategery]

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;

I very much disagree with this analysis. Where did you find it?

 

[Milliardo]

To clarify, I’m asking if this is the church’s teaching or Hahn’s supposition – that one in hell wouldn’t potentially ask for some kind of relief.

I think it is the Catholic Church’s position that there is no relief for someone in hell Thus we see the difference between souls in Purgatory and souls in hell; if souls in hell can be relieved or ask for relief, then what is stopping people from interceding on their behalf? That there is no intercession for their sake indicates they are beyond relief, and thus they cannot ask for it as well.

In the Golden Chain compiled by Thomas Aquinas, the Church Fathers disagree with Hahn. See the link below and scroll down to the last half of Luke 16 for the discussion.

It would be interesting what the Catholic Church’s actual stance on this; as far as I recall, the Church has not given any official statement or interpretation of this passage, leaving it open then for speculation. Thus while it is good to know the perspective of the early Fathers, we must also keep in mind that it is very open to interpretation.

 

[Strategery]

I think it is the Catholic Church’s position that there is no relief for someone in hell

That’s not Hahn’s contention however. He’s saying that someone in hell wouldn’t/couldn’t ask for relief. Note that the rich man was denied relief, and denied the ability to send any message to his brothers.

I Thus while it is good to know the perspective of the early Fathers, we must also keep in mind that it is very open to interpretation.

That applies to Scott Hahn as well, correct?

FWIW, I personally side with Doctors of the Church on this subject.

 

[Milliardo]

That’s not the same as someone asking for relief. Note that relief is denied in this passage.

Yes, but the relief he asks isn’t just that, as indicated he also asks to have his brothers warned. And as always noted, a soul in hell cannot ask for relief as it knows there is no chance for such in the place.

That applies to Scott Hahn as well, correct?

That is correct; it all comes down how you view the whole passage.

 

[Strategery]

Yes, but the relief he asks isn’t just that, as indicated he also asks to have his brothers warned. And as always noted, a soul in hell cannot ask for relief as it knows there is no chance for such in the place.

You’re stating this as if it were fact or doctrine, but you haven’t demonstrated that to be the case. How do you know that a soul in hell cannot ask for relief? Asking for it and getting it are two different things.

Note again that relief is denied. Purgatory is not mentioned or implied in any way.

 

[wjp984]

What I don’t undertand is how Lazarus could be in Heaven if Jesus had not risen from the dead yet? I thought everyone was in some sort of Limbo until Jesus rose from the dead? Also, perhaps the rich man was not yet in Hell but going there and therefore could show a last minute concern before being judged and sent to Hell.

 

[Milliardo]

How do you know that a soul in hell cannot ask for relief? Asking for it and getting it are two different things.

The souls in hell are already condemned, so there’s no chance for them to do so. Contrast this with what we know of Purgatory, where the souls demand for relief from their plight through our intercessions and prayers. We can already see the difference there. As I’ve stated, if souls in hell can ask and get relief, then what’s stopping people from interceding on their behalf? That this is not taught nor known should already be obvious–they cannot ask nor get relief, as they are beyond any relief.

Note again that relief is denied. Purgatory is not mentioned at all.

No, but alluded to. The place can more correctly be seen as Sheol, the abode of the dead in Judaism, as at the time Jesus spoke of this neither heaven and hell were opened yet to souls; they were confined to prison (cf. 1 Peter 3:19), which can be identified as Sheol, or later in Catholic teaching as Purgatory.

 

[Milliardo]

What I don’t undertand is how Lazarus could be in Heaven if Jesus had not risen from the dead yet? I thought everyone was in some sort of Limbo until Jesus rose from the dead?

Correct; see my answer above–the place alluded to by Jesus in Luke 16 is not heaven and hell, but Sheol, the abode of the dead in Judaism.

 

[Strategery]

The souls in hell are already condemned, so there’s no chance for them to do so. Contrast this with what we know of Purgatory, where the souls demand for relief from their plight through our intercessions and prayers. We can already see the difference there. As I’ve stated, if souls in hell can ask and get relief, then what’s stopping people from interceding on their behalf? That this is not taught nor known should already be obvious–they cannot ask nor get relief, as they are beyond any relief.

Agreed that that the souls are condemned. Agree that they can’t get relief, and I’ve never contended and do not believe that they can - so the intercession point doesn’t apply here.

However, it does not logically follow that because they can’t get relief, they can’t ask for it. I think you’re making a leap of logic there and I disagree that it is obvious.

 

[Strategery]

Correct; see my answer above–the place alluded to by Jesus in Luke 16 is not heaven and hell, but Sheol, the abode of the dead in Judaism.

I thought you said it was purgatory?

 

[Milliardo]

However, it does not logically follow that because they can’t get relief, they can’t ask for it. I think you’re making a leap of logic there and I disagree that it is obvious.

Well, if they can’t get relief, why ask in the first place? That would be very obvious once God hands down His judgment on those condemned for hell, that there is no relief for them and they cannot ask relief as well, hence as pointed out, the difference between hell and Purgatory.

 

[Strategery]

Well, if they can’t get relief, why ask in the first place? That would be very obvious once God hands down His judgment on those condemned for hell, that there is no relief for them and they cannot ask relief as well, hence as pointed out, the difference between hell and Purgatory.

We’re not going to agree on your conclusion, because we don’t agree that you have established that soul in hell can’t ask for relief. There is a difference between asking and getting. The fact that you can’t get relief doesn’t mean that you can’t ask – only that it is fruitless. As is demonstrated in the passage.

 

[Milliardo]

We’re not going to agree on your conclusion, because we don’t agree that you have established that soul in hell can’t ask for relief.

I think this is pretty much established already; if souls in hell can ask for relief, then there is practically no difference from Purgatory where souls can ask for relief. If that is so, then can we pray for the souls in hell for relief, since they can ask for such? Since in no way is it taught that souls in hell can ask for relief (but it is taught in Catholic teaching that souls in Purgatory can), then the conclusion is pretty obvious.

 

[rcjones]

I very much disagree with this analysis. Where did you find it?

I have discussed the source in other threads such as:

• Scott Hahn says that Ham (Cham) can be interpreted as having had sex with … - in the Sacred Scripture forum of Catholic Answers Forums.

And you may find a more extensive explanation at idontknownuthin.com

You are certainly welcome to disagree, however you may wish to understand it before you judge it.

Prov 18:13 ¶ He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

 

[Strategery]

I think this is pretty much established already; if souls in hell can ask for relief, then there is practically no difference from Purgatory where souls can ask for relief. If that is so, then can we pray for the souls in hell for relief, since they can ask for such? Since in no way is it taught that souls in hell can ask for relief (but it is taught in Catholic teaching that souls in Purgatory can), then the conclusion is pretty obvious.

We disagree that you’ve established that souls can’t ask for relief.

I just reviewed the Catechism, the Compendium, and the Catechism for the United States (adults) and none of these sources appear teach what you claim – that souls can’t ask for relief. If they do, I can’t find the teaching.

Furthermore we’re hung up on this particular point of the discussion. Consider also the following:

• The passage does not state that the rich man can eventually have relief, or that prayers of others will help him secure relief, as would be the case if he were in purgatory.
• The passage states that the chasm can’t be crossed. The church clearly teaches that souls in purgatory are destined for heaven – that a soul can move from one to the other. How can this be the same chasm?
• Upon having relief denied (not postponed until purification has occured), the rich man asks that a warning be sent to his brothers so that they do not “come to this place of torment.” Note the answer – “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.” If they are not listening to Moses, or the prophets, or if one rises from the dead (ie, Christ), then why do you think the destination would be Purgatory?

Note the CCC teaching on Purgatory:

1054 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship imperfectly purified, although they are assured of their eternal salvation, undergo a purification after death, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of God.

Does the rich man appear to be someone dying in God’s grace and friendship? It is logical to assume that he didn’t listen to Moses or the prophets (because if his brothers don’t they’ll end up where he is).

I understand the point you’re trying to make, but I don’t think there’s any evidence to support purgatory beyond speculation. However, if you look at scripture and tradition together (including the writings of Augustine, Origen, Chrysostam, and others), there’s a lot of evidence to support that hell is being described.

Finally - don’t take my discussion as hostility by any means. This is great discussion – iron sharpening iron.

 

[Strategery]

You are certainly welcome to disagree, however you may wish to understand it before you judge it.

I’m pretty sure I understand it, I just don’t agree.

 

[rcjones]

You have not given a basis or reason for the disagreement, how can I answer?

 

[Milliardo]

We disagree that you’ve established that souls can;t ask for relief.

I just reviewed the Catechism, the Compendium, and the Catechism for the United States (adults) and none of these sources appear teach what you claim – that souls can’t ask for relief. If they do, I can’t find the teaching.

Neither is it taught then that they can ask for such, so we seem to be in a dilemma here; but considering it is hell and not Purgatory, it makes for common sense that they cannot ask nor receive relief.

The passage does not state that the rich man can eventually have relief, or that prayers of others will help him secure relief, as would be the case if he were in purgatory.

This is because it is not the point of the passage.

The passage states that the chasm can’t be crossed. The church clearly teaches that souls in purgatory are destined for heaven – that a soul can move from one to the other. How can this be the same chasm?

There’s no indication as well that those in heaven can move freely in Purgatory apart from God Himself.

Upon having relief denied (not postponed until purification has occured), the rich man asks that a warning be sent to his brothers so that they do not “come to this place of torment.” Note the answer – “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.” If they are not listening to Moses, or the prophets, or to one who rises from the dead (ie, Christ), then why do you think the destination would be Purgatory?

Because not listening does not necessarily mean not doing, which would be different. One would not listen but act (see Jesus’ parable on this one).

Does the rich man appear to be someone dying in God’s grace and friendship?

We are not told of his state at the time he died; we are only shown his relation with Lazarus. We are not shown what his relation is with other people. At the most, as stated, his would more be a sin of omission than a sin of commission, which would be more of a venial than mortal sin, hence not warranting hell. At the least he did not do enough for Lazarus–again, a case that does not warrant hell either.

However, if you look at scripture and tradition together (including the writings of Augustine, Origen, Chrysostam, and others), there’s a lot of evidence to support that hell is being described.

Seeing in this case that the Catholic Church has left this passage open to interpretation, we are free to agree or disagree with the Church Fathers on this.

And yes, it is great discussion–nothing wrong with that.

 

[Strategery]

Fair enough, here goes.

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…

This claims that the rich man is actually Christ because he’s wearing purple. This rich man neglected the beggar in life, following death was separated across a chasm from Abraham, is being tormented by flames, asks for a drop of water, has his request denied by Abraham, and so on. This analysis asks me to believe that the person who did all these things is Christ. Very difficult to believe. Would the divine Christ need to ask Abraham for anything? “Before Abraham was, I AM.”

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.

This is a similar stretch. The person described is a beggar at the door, who ends up in Abraham’s bosom. Furthermore, I disagree that Christ was made to “be sin.”

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.

These assertions aren’t scriptural. Christ was fully god and man. The Word came to life and walked the earth. You’re claiming that the incarnate Word only had a portion of the word. This is contrary to the nature of Christ.

The vomiting/licking/separation/tearing of the veil string is a conjecture trail that has no basis in scripture or tradition.

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 don’t understand this search for hidden meaning when there is so much to be taken from the words that are there. It’s a digression/stumbling block that takes one away from the teaching at hand.