Rich Man and Lazarus - True Story?

[Lunam_Meam]

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.

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.

Lazarus and the rich man are representations of two types of people — ones who have all bad things, but turn it into good, and those who have all good things, but do evil of it. The beggar, not the rich man, is named alongside Abraham and Moses who were also obedient to God and of True holiness.

 

[Dan_Defender]

There are other parables which have good people and they are not named. Bottomline: you can have your opinion and I can have mine. I never said mine is the only possible or correct one.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

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.

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.

Lunam_Meam:

Lazarus and the rich man are representations of two types of people — ones who have all bad things, but turn it into good, and those who have all good things, but do evil of it. The beggar, not the rich man, is named alongside Abraham and Moses who were also obedient to God and of True holiness.

There are other parables which have good people and they are not named.

Because it wasn’t necessary. It was necessary in this parable for reasons explained.

 

[Gorgias]

PetraG:

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.

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.

You may not like the opinion given, but I think it’s valuable to look at the context of Luke 15-16, and perhaps that’ll give us some insight. I might not agree totally with Petra’s take, but it has a certain value.

By naming Lazarus, Jesus makes it difficult for us to say “that’s me”. After all, He’s already named him in a way that’s distinct and exclusive. On the other hand, since Jesus has been pointing out the ways that the scribes and Pharisees fail to live up to the Law’s demand to love one’s fellow Jew, the only person left in the story with whom to identify is the rich man who is tormented in Sheol.

I think it’s reasonable to suggest that Jesus is challenging us to ask ourselves, “am I that person? am I the one in the story who doesn’t care for others?”

 

[TMC]

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.

I think this is correct, but I also think that among the various Jewish communities the idea of whether there was an afterlife, and what it may be like was evolving at that time.

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

Yes, of course this is generally true of Scripture, and is part of what makes some passages difficult to understand today.

 

[BlueMaxx]

Kind of a silly thread in one sense…not a one of us were there to know if this was just a parable or an actual event.
Why try to prove or disprove the actuality of the moment?
Why not just take the message and the scenario or actual event on faith?

Regardless if this happened one day, the message is clear…I often think and pray and meditate on the scriptures by trying to put myself in the day to day lives of those who were there, in person with Christ throughout all His life.

I often think what did happen to the rich man?
What happened to the Roman Centurions who witnessed the happenings of Christ?

Did they change their hearts and accept Christ for who he said he was?
What happened to Lazarus in his life after Christ raised him from the dead, or the little girl?

What about Pontius Pilate? Did he in the aftermath have a change of heart?
Did he cry out to God for forgiveness?
What of his wife who warned him?
What was their next days like?

It all helps me grow deeper in our faith.

Spending time thinking about “did this actually happen?” takes away from the message.

Not one person here can definitively say this is true or this is merely parable.

John 20:30

30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.

31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

 

[BlueMaxx]

I think the name Lazarus was like Smith or Jones in our time…

 

[Gorgias]

not a one of us were there to know if this was just a parable or an actual event.
Why try to prove or disprove the actuality of the moment?

You’ve seen one of the reasons addressed in this thread! If “actual event”, then you have to deal with the question “is this a literal, dogmatic treatment of the afterlife?” and all the implications the answer brings.

So… you thought that Lazarus – the brother of Mary and Martha and beloved of Jesus – died destitute, homeless, and alone?

 

[BlueMaxx]

Sorry, I think I was misreading the multiple inner quotes of the posts…
Mea Culpa

 

[Gorgias]

Except that it was his sisters who contacted Jesus to tell him that Lazarus had fallen ill at home and needed Jesus to heal him!

Moreover, Lazarus – the one whom Jesus raised from the dead – lived in Bethany, near Jerusalem. However, the story of the rich man and Lazarus is told in the context of Jesus traveling toward Jerusalem (see Luke 13), having started up north (“Samaria and Galilee”, see Luke 18) and going down to Jerusalem. So, if the claim is that the people in Galilee to whom Jesus tells the story (in Luke 16) knew Lazarus of Bethany, that would be quite difficult to believe!

Yep. Or, it could be that the “Lazarus” in Luke 16 is just a character in a story…

 

[Dan_Defender]

I think it’s reasonable to suggest that Jesus is challenging us to ask ourselves, “am I that person? am I the one in the story who doesn’t care for others?”

Yes of course that is a possibility. I think you get that this is not a ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ type of thread

 

[Elf01]

Yep. Or, it could be that the “Lazarus” in Luke 16 is just a character in a story…

I think the fact that Jesus raised a man called Lazarus, and used the nane in this parable is significant, but it may have been just to bring the raiding of Lazarus to mind and drive home the point that even someone being raised from the dead isn’t enough to make people listen.

 

[Gorgias]

it may have been just to bring the raiding of Lazarus to mind

The parable is told in the Lucan tradition. The Johannine tradition (which tells the story of the raising of Lazarus) didn’t come around until a couple of decades later. So, Luke’s story can’t have been meant to bring to mind John’s story.

Moreover, the timeline of Luke places Jesus in the north – albeit headed for his last trip to Jerusalem – at the time of the telling of the parable. In John, Jesus stays in the vicinity of Jerusalem after raising Lazarus, so his telling of the parable would have taken place before the raising of Lazarus. So, Jesus couldn’t have meant for His audience (in Luke 16) to recall something that He hadn’t yet done.

Perhaps, though, you’re saying that the divine intent of Scripture was merely that future audiences would have drawn the connection between the two names. Perhaps; and yet, future audiences would have been able to reach the same logical conclusions I’m describing here.

It really doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny.

 

[Elf01]

Perhaps you’re saying that the divine intent of Scripture was merely that future audiences would have drawn the connection between the two names. Perhaps; and yet, future audiences would have been able to reach the same logical conclusions I’m describing here.

I’m assuming that some of the people who heard the parable would have witnessed, or heard about the reserruction of Lazarus.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m assuming that some of the people who heard the parable would have witnessed, or heard about the reserruction of Lazarus.

Later on? Sure. But that’s anachronistic. It’s like saying that people who hear about “George Washington” would think “oh, yeah! Peanuts! I know that guy!”*

* Yes, that was a rather obscure George Washington Carver reference.

 

[hope]

It took me a bit to understand why you thought it was an anachronism.
If I am right, you believe that the parable came before the raising of Lazarus.
But I don’t know how you would come to this conclusion?

 

[Dan_Defender]

In the gospel of John, it states that after Lazarus’ resurrection, Jesus did no longer preach openly among the Pharisees for they were looking to kill him and Lazarus. Shortly after this event, Jesus goes to Jerusalem to fulfill His Passion.
In the gospel of Luke, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is among several parables and after them, Luke relates how the Pharisees asked about the kingdom of God and how Jesus responded. Therefore, Jesus was still preaching openly and this parable was said before the death and resurrection of his friend Lazarus.

 

[mythbuster1]

Lazarus of Bethany wasn’t a poor beggar. His sister was able to anoint Jesus with a perfumed oil worth 300 denarii. That means that either Lazarus’ family was rich enough to spend 300 denarii on perfume, or they were in the business of manufacturing perfume, which would also make them rich. The rich men in Jesus’ parables and sermons were condemned not for being rich, but for neglecting charity and prayer or for having gained their wealth dishonestly.

 

[mythbuster1]

Lazarus begged at the rich man’s gate, and yet the rich man wouldn’t even let Lazarus eat his garbage. The rich man was condemned not for being rich, but for ignoring the Torah’s command to give charity and not to ignore the plight of the poor nor stand idly by while your neighbor dies when you can save him.

 

[Dlee]

Yes, I thought I was clear that there were two different men named Lazarus. My point was that they had the same name and an experience with death.