Rich Man and Lazarus - True Story?

[Dan_Defender]

I was reading a commentary on this and it strikes me that there is no other parable by Jesus where a character is called by the first name. So it seems logical that Lazarus was a real person who died not long ago and was known to the hearers of the story. This would have increased the Pharisees’ rage as Jesus would be claiming to know the fate and interactions of souls in the afterlife of people known to them.
What do you think?

 

[dscath]

No, a parable…but none the less an important way to communicate a lesson.

It’s like the Book of Job…one does not have to believe that sacred scripture, and its lessons, mean that every word, verse, chapter, or book needs to be taken literally. Genre is important.

The church clearly defines the difference between taking scripture literally, and in considering the literal sense,the two are not the same,.

Only after considering the literal sense, and then the spiritual sense, do we find truth!

Pax et Bonum!

 

[Bithynian]

Lazarus

The name is derived from the Hebrew Eleazar, which means ‘God has helped’. Some commentaries note that the narrative is likely a parable and that the name was selected for didactic purposes.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Yes but there would be other Hebrew names applicable to other parables, and yet only in this one a character is named. Seems significant to me.

 

[Gorgias]

So it seems logical that Lazarus was a real person who died not long ago and was known to the hearers of the story.

If Lazarus was real and known to the listeners, then so would be the rich man at whose feet he sat, right? So then, if it’s significant that Jesus names the “known” Lazarus, then why would He not name the “known” rich man?

 

[mdgspencer]

.
Some Biblical scholars have said these are not actual people, others have said that they are actual people.
However, I have been particular taken by what it says about life after death, in both places.

 

[BartholomewB]

This would have increased the Pharisees’ rage

But the rich man in the parable is said (by some commentators, at least) to represent the Sadducees, not the Pharisees. He is portrayed as a wealthy citizen, and the Sadducees seem to have been members of the ruling class in Roman-ruled Judea. Also, he doesn’t believe there is life after death. In Luke 20:27-37 and parallels (the seven brothers who all die, one after the other) Jesus is explicitly addressing a group of Sadducees.

 

[Dlee]

This is just a thought - nothing more. I’ve always thought about Lazarus in this parable and Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha, friend of Jesus. Lazarus (friend of Jesus) was resuscitated (return to life) by Jesus. Did everyone then believe Jesus was the Messiah because he raised Lazarus? No. In the parable, the rich man asks for Lazarus to go to his family so they will believe. The answer - if they don’t believe the prophets, they won’t believe someone who is raised from the dead (Jesus). Again, just a personal observation.

 

[Dan_Defender]

If Lazarus was real and known to the listeners, then so would be the rich man at whose feet he sat, right? So then, if it’s significant that Jesus names the “known” Lazarus, then why would He not name the “known” rich man?

That’s a good point.
Maybe to emphasize good over evil.
Or maybe since Jesus knew the story would be recorded, he wanted future generations to remember the name of the poor Lazarus as one who achieved salvation, and not the name of the one who was damned.

 

[Dan_Defender]

But the rich man in the parable is said (by some commentators, at least) to represent the Sadducees, not the Pharisees. He is portrayed as a wealthy citizen, and the Sadducees seem to have been members of the ruling class in Roman-ruled Judea. Also, he doesn’t believe there is life after death. In Luke 20:27-37 and parallels (the seven brothers who all die, one after the other) Jesus is explicitly addressing a group of Sadducees.

Well I am under the impression that a good number of Pharisees were rich too. Jesus called them lovers of money so that implies that not only social status but also wealth was common among them.

 

[Dan_Defender]

if they don’t believe the prophets, they won’t believe someone who is raised from the dead (Jesus).

Non only that but a number of people resurrected (whether temporarily or longer like Lazarus, debatable point) after Jesus’ resurrection and appeared to people, and still they wouldn’t believe.

 

[TMC]

Yes but there would be other Hebrew names applicable to other parables, and yet only in this one a character is named. Seems significant to me.

The parable (and I believe it is a parable) of Lazarus and the Rich Man is notable for a number of reasons. As you point out, one is that Lazarus has a name - why? Is Jesus just putting the name of his friend in the story to amuse his friends? Or to make it more memorable? Or some other reason?

It is also notable in that it (arguably) provides a description of the afterlife. Was it meant to accurately describe the afterlife, or is that merely a backdrop for the moral lesson? It appears that the “good” Lazarus and the “bad” rich man go so the same place - at least they can see and hear each other. Is Jesus saying that is what the afterlife will be like? The depiction differs in many ways from what most modern Christians think the afterlife will be like - but, again, is it meant to be taken as a description of what it will actually be like?

Also - why is Lazarus getting a good afterlife and the rich man a bad one? The text does not say that Lazarus is a good or righteous person, only that he is poor. The rich man’s sin seems to be that he is rich. So are they being rewarded and punished only based on their relative wealth, or is it based on their behavior? Most would say it has to be more than their relative wealth, but the text doesn’t explicitly say that. Nothing is said about the two characters beliefs or faith (although presumably both are Jewish).

I am not offering any answers, although it might be fun to discuss the possible answers here. I am just agreeing that this parable is both unique and fascinating.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Also - why is Lazarus getting a good afterlife and the rich man a bad one? The text does not say that Lazarus is a good or righteous person, only that he is poor. The rich man’s sin seems to be that he is rich. So are they being rewarded and punished only based on their relative wealth, or is it based on their behavior? Most would say it has to be more than their relative wealth, but the text doesn’t explicitly say that. Nothing is said about the two characters beliefs or faith (although presumably both are Jewish).

On this one I disagree with you. Maybe not explicit enough for you, but to me and to the Jewish audience, it is clearly implied that the rich guy was attached to his wealth caring much about comfort and luxury, while poor Lazarus had a life of suffering but had faith. Besides, if both characters were real people known to the audience, this point would have been even clearer.

 

[TMC]

On this one I disagree with you. Maybe not explicit enough for you, but to me and to the Jewish audience, it is clearly implied that the rich guy was attached to his wealth caring much about comfort and luxury, while poor Lazarus had a life of suffering but had faith. Besides, if both characters were real people known to the audience, this point would have been even clearer.

A fair interpretation, but it is an interpretation. The text says nothing about Lazarus’ character, and little about the rich man. I think you are probably correct, actually, but it is interesting that their relative righteousness is not made explicit in the parable. Their relative wealth stands as a proxy for their righteousness, suggesting (to me, at least) that Jesus and/or His audience saw wealth as an (inverse) indicator of righteousness. It reminds me of Isaiah 58, which also takes the rich to task for outward piety that does not actually aid the poor.

 

[PetraG]

I was reading a commentary on this and it strikes me that there is no other parable by Jesus where a character is called by the first name. So it seems logical that Lazarus was a real person who died not long ago and was known to the hearers of the story. This would have increased the Pharisees’ rage as Jesus would be claiming to know the fate and interactions of souls in the afterlife of people known to them.
What do you think?

I think he had a name because it was important to the story that the poor man with sores who was suffering on the very doorstep of the rich man who dined sumptuously every day be depicted as a person with a name.

“There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores."
Lk 16:19-21

Usually, it is the rich and powerful person whose name is known and the poor man who is nameless. We aren’t meant to identify with Lazarus. We’re meant to wake up and realize that Lazarus has a name. Our Lord wasn’t gossiping on the sly about some rich man that everybody knew. He was warning his listeners to see the poor and the suffering as persons whose names are known to God.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Usually, it is the rich and powerful person whose name is known and the poor man who is nameless. We aren’t meant to identify with Lazarus. We’re meant to wake up and realize that Lazarus has a name. Our Lord wasn’t gossiping on the sly about some rich man that everybody knew. He was warning his listeners to see the poor and the suffering as persons whose names are known to God.

Your language seems too strong. You are entitled to your opinion but you shouldn’t phrase it in such a way as to make it the only possible/correct opinion. It is also possible that the Jewish audience knew the persons in the story and that wouldn’t be an outrage like you seem to think. Another parable talks about the king who goes away to receive his kingdom and the subjects send an envoy to argue that they don’t want this person as king. King Herod Archelaus was known to the Jews as someone who went to Rome and the Jews at the same time sent an envoy arguing against him receiving the kingdom after a big incident where many Jews died as related by historian Josephus. So Jesus was no stranger to at least partially including real facts and people in his parables.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

It’s not a true story, but a parable. Lazarus represents those who have all bad things, but turn it into good. Dives represents those who have all good things, but do evil of it. Lazarus showed true holiness by never infringing the Law, not even when urged by need, and above all he had complied with the precept of love for God, and for his neighbor.

This is the parable of Dives, and its meaning is to do the will of God, Who wants us in our humble condition, with simplicity and good will. Not gold, but virtue is rewarded in Heaven. Virtue and submission to the will of God, make God the friend of man.

 

[Gorgias]

Usually, it is the rich and powerful person whose name is known and the poor man who is nameless. We aren’t meant to identify with Lazarus. We’re meant to wake up and realize that Lazarus has a name. Our Lord wasn’t gossiping on the sly about some rich man that everybody knew. He was warning his listeners to see the poor and the suffering as persons whose names are known to God.

Interesting point! Never thought of it that way!

It is also notable in that it (arguably) provides a description of the afterlife. Was it meant to accurately describe the afterlife, or is that merely a backdrop for the moral lesson? It appears that the “good” Lazarus and the “bad” rich man go so the same place - at least they can see and hear each other. Is Jesus saying that is what the afterlife will be like?

Well… there wasn’t “heaven and hell”, as such, at that point. The understanding of the audience to whom Jesus is telling the story would have understood Sheol, as well as the notion of the ‘bosom of Abraham’ as a place of comfort and of the idea of suffering for some in Sheol.

The depiction differs in many ways from what most modern Christians think the afterlife will be like

Sure. But it wasn’t “forward looking”, so to speak, so much as “working within the constraints of what folks would recognize.”

 

[Dan_Defender]

It’s not a true story, but a parable. Lazarus represents those who have all bad things,

If the characters of the parable were real people known to the Jewish audience, it wouldn’t undermine the teaching/message of the story. Naming Lazarus by name is unparalleled in Jesus’ parables.

 

[PetraG]

Your language seems too strong. You are entitled to your opinion but you shouldn’t phrase it in such a way as to make it the only possible/correct opinion.

The question was “What do you think?” I wrote what I think.
I’m sorry that you do not approve of how strongly I worded it.