The Rich Man vs Lazarus

  • Thread starter Thread starter whichwaytogo47
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

whichwaytogo47

Guest
I was wondering if the Rich Man was in hell or if he needs to be purged of his earthly sin?

We know Lazarus is in heaven or in Abraham’s bosom and there’s a chasm between Lazarus and the rich man? Was the rich man guilty of unrepentant mortal sin or guilty of uncleansed venial sin?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
whichwaytogo47 said:
I was wondering if the Rich Man was in hell or if he needs to be purged of his earthly sin?
Click to expand...
This question is asked relatively often around here; you might want to use the ‘search’ function to see what folks have said.

There are some who feel justified in answering ‘purgatory’ and others who insist it’s ‘hell’. (I think ‘hell’ makes more sense in the context of the telling of the parable.)

Lazarus is in “Abraham’s bosom”, since there’s no one in heaven prior to Jesus’ resurrection.
whichwaytogo47 said:
Was the rich man guilty of unrepentant mortal sin or guilty of uncleansed venial sin?
Click to expand...
You’re asking the “hell or purgatory?” question again. If mortal sin, then hell; otherwise, purgatory, right?

In any case, he’s not told “there’s an chasm that can be crossed only under certain conditions”; he’s told that it’s uncrossable. Sure sounds like that implies ‘hell’…
 
The rich man didn’t listen to Moses so he would not accept someone who is raised from the dead.

The rich man has committed the unforgivable sin. He rejected the revelation of God given to Moses to the very end and died in his sin. He is in hell.
 
Reasons to think it is Hell:
  • The Uncrossable Chasm
  • The Rich Man man’s “prayers” for intercession are rejected.
  • The Rich Man is perpetuating his sin (treating Lazarus as an object) even after death.
Reasons to think it is Purgatory
  • The Rich Man can somehow speak to Abraham.
I think there are parts of this parable that can apply to those in Purgatory, but that isn’t its primary purpose. The Rich Man is a warning of hell.
 
Last edited:
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus does not line up particularly well with the Church’s current understanding of the afterlife. Of course, that may be because Jesus did not mean it to be a detailed dissertation on how the afterlife works, but rather a parable on how to behave in this life.

All that said, the common interpretation is indeed that the Rich Man is presented as condemned to Hell and that Lazarus is presented as in Heaven.
 
Jesus says they are both in Hades, the Greek term for the Hebrew Sheol, which in the OT designates the unsegregated abode of all the dead, the good and the wicked together in one gloomy underworld. However, the whole point of the parable is that Lazarus is in a comfortable place while the rich man is burning in the flames – although they are close enough to one another to carry on a conversation, each on his own side of the chasm. In terms of heaven, hell, and purgatory, I don’t see any easy answer to the question.
 
whichwaytogo47 said:
Was the rich man guilty of unrepentant mortal sin or guilty of uncleansed venial sin?
Click to expand...
The bible says the rich man was in Hades, which basically translated to Hell. As for his sin, he committed a mortal sin of omission by letting Lazarus die despite being wealthy enough to save his life with out inconveniencing himself.
 
Last edited:
BornInMarch said:
The bible says the rich man was in Hades, which basically translated to Hell. As for his sin, he committed a mortal sin of omission by letting Lazarus die despite being wealthy enough to save his life with out inconveniencing himself.
Click to expand...
Aren’t we expected to inconvenience ourselves and/or give generously? Aren’t we supposed to be charitable? The big question is when does lack of charity constitute venial sin and when does it constitute mortal sin? Is it mortal sin because the lack of charity was throughout the Rich Man’s life?
 
Last edited:
My point was that the Rich Man had no excuse to not save Lazarus, but he chose to do nothing presumably on the basis of “It’s not my problem”.

As for when a lack of charity constitutes sin, I found this answer that I think fits:
A: A sin of omission is committed when a person has a duty to do something but doesn’t do it. … If you saw a person drowning in a river and didn’t throw a rope to him, that too would be a serious sin of omission. Jesus was very clear about what awaits people who are guilty of serious omissions.

There are certain things we are morally required to do, either because of our state in life (we are baptized Catholics, for instance) or simply because we are human and we have an obligation to show basic charity and respect for the life and property of others.
Click to expand...
You don’t have to give a dollar to every homeless man you see on the street, but if you see a homeless man bleeding out from a stab wound you have to at least try to save his life.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top