Rich Man and Lazarus - True Story?

[mythbuster1]

For the record, Josephus’ description of the Pharisees understanding of the afterlife was basically identical to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.

 

[Gorgias]

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?

The parable in Luke took place while Jesus was moving from the north toward Jerusalem (and his passion, death and resurrection). The raising of Lazarus took place near Jerusalem and Jesus stayed in the region until his passion, death and resurrection.

So, if you believe the timelines put forth in Luke and John, then you must conclude that the telling of the parable must have taken place prior to the raising of Lazarus.

 

[MNathaniel]

I think there’s no magisterially mandated interpretation for this one (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

I think I’ve heard at least one priest treat this story as a possible case of Jesus telling us about a real person called Lazarus (whose life and afterlife Jesus knew about and was describing fairly straightforwardly), although I don’t think that particular priest felt it was necessary to assume that Lazarus died recently and was known to the hearers of the story.

 

[Bithynian]

I think there’s no magisterially mandated interpretation for this one (someone correct me if I’m wrong).

There isn’t. The majority of the Church Fathers who have written on Lk 16:19-31 treat it as a parable. For e.g. Chrysostom’s Four Homilies on Lazarus consistently describes the narrative using the term παραβολή parabole.

In his Homily 64 (on Matthew), Chrysostom advises against overly literal readings of parables: “it is not wise to inquire curiously into all things in parables word by word but when we have learnt the object for which it was composed, to read this, and not to busy oneself about anything further”.

 

[MNathaniel]

In his Homily 64 (on Matthew), Chrysostom advises against overly literal readings of parables: “it is not wise to inquire curiously into all things in parables word by word but when we have learnt the object for which it was composed, to read this, and not to busy oneself about anything further”.

I agree with this as a general rule. I just didn’t want the OP to get the wrong impression from the fact that virtually every response emphasizes that the normal approach is to avoid literal interpretation. Just wanted to put it out there that it is technically possible (and, I believe, permissible and possibly even fruitful) to consider the possibility that Jesus may, in this one instance, have meant it literally when he said: “There was a rich man… and at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus…”

I’m not trying to argue the point one way or the other. Just put it out there that even if it’s unpopular to consider a literal interpretation, it’s permissible. (And in my original reply I also emphasized that the part I hadn’t heard and didn’t think we have textual/historical evidence for assuming, would be the idea that the hearers of the story would know which recently-dead Lazarus Jesus meant.)

 

[TMC]

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.

This is a common interpretation, and you are welcome to your interpretation. But it is an interpretation, that is not found in the text of the Gospel. Jesus does not say that the rich man was tormented for being uncharitable. He says it is because the rich man “received what was good during [his] lifetime.”

 

[TMC]

I’m not trying to argue the point one way or the other. Just put it out there that even if it’s unpopular to consider a literal interpretation, it’s permissible.

You are correct, of course. I think that many Catholics would avoid a literal interpretation of this parable because the depiction of the afterlife does not comport with the general Catholic understanding of how the afterlife is supposed to work. It is also possible, of course, that the characters are real, but that the depiction of the afterlife is not intended as a literal description.

 

[Dan_Defender]

I agree with this as a general rule. I just didn’t want the OP to get the wrong impression from the fact that virtually every response emphasizes that the normal approach is to avoid literal interpretation. Just wanted to put it out there that it is technically possible (and, I believe, permissible and possibly even fruitful) to consider the possibility that Jesus may , in this one instance, have meant it literally when he said: “There was a rich man… and at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus…”

Don’t worry, the OP understands your position. It is possible that the characters in the parable were real people known to the audience. Just as it is possible that the characters were merely fictional characters. The OP’s point is that it is significant that a real name (Lazarus) was used for this parable character, unlike all other parables.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

It is possible that the characters in the parable were real people known to the audience. Just as it is possible that the characters were merely fictional characters. The OP’s point is that it is significant that a real name (Lazarus) was used for this parable character, unlike all other parables.

Is the beggar, Lazarus, in the Parable of the Rich Man a real person?

No. The beggar 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.

Why did Jesus choose the name “Lazarus” for the beggar?

He used the name of His friend, the wealthy Lazarus of Bethany, who’s miracle of being risen from the dead would later prove true one of the lessons from the parable:

The rich man asked Abraham to send the beggar, Lazarus, to testify unto others. Abraham replied: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.”

Did they believe Jesus, the Master, and His miracles? What did Lazarus of Bethany’s miracle achieve? Jesus’s hurried death sentence. And, Jesus’s resurrection? An increase of their hatred. Even Jesus’s miracles of those last days among them will not convince the world, but only those who no longer belong to the world, as they have chosen the Kingdom of God with its present fatigue and pains and its future glory.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

The parable in Luke took place while Jesus was moving from the north toward Jerusalem (and his passion, death and resurrection). The raising of Lazarus took place near Jerusalem and Jesus stayed in the region until his passion, death and resurrection.

So, if you believe the timelines put forth in Luke and John, then you must conclude that the telling of the parable must have taken place prior to the raising of Lazarus.

Yes, the telling of the parable of the rich man took place prior to Lazarus of Bethany’s death and resurrection. And, in the gospel of John, as it has now been read for ages, there is written: “Jesus had not yet come into the village of Bethany” (John 11:30). To avoid possible objections I’ll point out that, with regard to this sentence, and where it states Jesus met Martha of Bethany a few steps away from the fountain in Lazarus’s garden, there is no contradiction of events, but only a discrepancy of translation and description. Three quarters of the village of Bethany belonged to Lazarus. Likewise a large part of Jerusalem belonged to him. But, let us speak of Bethany. As three quarters of it belonged to Lazarus, one could say: Bethany of Lazarus. So, the text would not be wrong even if Jesus had met Martha in the village, or at the fountain, as some people wish to say. In actual fact, Jesus had not yet gone into the village. And, equally right is the one who says that Jesus stopped near the basin (fountain for the Jews) already in Lazarus’s garden, but still very far from the house. One should also consider that during the period of mourning and uncleanness (it was not yet the seventh day after Lazarus’s death) his sisters did not leave the house. So, the meeting took place within the enclosure of their property. Note the people of Bethany came into the garden only when Jesus had ordered the stone to be removed. Previously the people of Bethany did not know that Jesus was in Bethany, and only when the news was spread they rushed to Lazarus’s house.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

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.

This is a common interpretation, and you are welcome to your interpretation. But it is an interpretation, that is not found in the text of the Gospel. Jesus does not say that the rich man was tormented for being uncharitable. He says it is because the rich man “received what was good during [his] lifetime.”

“And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.” (Luke 16:25)

The beggar 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. This is reinforced by the verses leading up to verse 25, where we read how the rich man did evil of the good he had been given: denied the beggar even the crumbs from his table, nor tended to his sores, thereby disobeying God’s commandment to be charitable. As for the beggar, Lazarus, to be the only other named alongside Abraham and Moses, it shows that like them, he was obedient to God. 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.

The meaning of the parable 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.

So, @mythbuster1 is correct.

 

[phaster]

BartholomewB:

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.

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

Jesus does not say that the rich man was tormented for being uncharitable. He says it is because the rich man “received what was good during [his] lifetime.”

agree it is a parable that tries to point out that it is important not to take money and social status as something to be sought after because there are repercussions that should be considered,… FWIW something I always thought related (which has practical applications IMHO)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

actually money mismanagement (i.e. debt AND the prosperity gospel) is the root cause of all kinds of problems

 

[mythbuster1]

These coronavirus shutdowns are the Green New Deal. It is untenable to save the environment by depriving people en masse of their ability to earn an honest living. The effects of the shutdown itself on people’s health wind up killing more than the perceived threat.