Paradise Cafe Discussions - A Place For Bible Research And Christian Encouragement

Has anyone else ever pondered this?

Why would Jesus go against scripture, namely, Eccl 9:5 about the dead knowing nothing, when giving this parable? In other words, to make a symbolic point, why would Jesus point to the false doctrine of an immortal soul and a fiery hell? :confused:

Could it be that those doctrines are not so false after all? :dontknow:

Any help in this would surely be appreciated.

This is a simple parable regarding the Nation of Israel.

RR

And my question still goes unanswered.

Here's one explanation for your consideration -

The True Story in Detail

The story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable (Matthew 13:34). Once this is recognized the interpretation behind the narrative can become quite meaningful. It is also very important to note the context in which the parable is found. There was a reason why Christ spoke this parable at that time. Christ had just given His teaching about the unjust steward who had mishandled his master’s money (Luke 16:1–13). This parable was told to further illustrate what proper stewardship is.

Let us first consider the identification of Lazarus. This is the only time in Christ’s parables that a person’s name is used. Some have imagined that this use of a personal name precludes the story being a parable. But this is hardly true. The name "Lazarus" is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Eleazar" (which means "God has helped"). The name was a common Hebrew word used for eleven different persons in the Old Testament.

When one analyzes the parable, this Eleazar can be identified. He was one who must have had some kind of affinity with Abraham (or the Abrahamic covenant), for the parable places him in Abraham’s bosom after death. But he was probably a Gentile. The phrase "desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table" was typical of Gentile identification (see Matthew 15:22–28). Even the phrase "laid at his gate" is reminiscent of the normal one used by Jews to denote the Gentile proselyte "Proselyte of the Gate." This Eleazar must also have been associated with stewardship because Christ gave the parable precisely for the reason of explaining what represents the true steward.

There was only one Eleazar in the historical part of the Bible that fits the description. He was a person associated with Abraham, he was a Gentile (not an ethnic part of the Abrahamic family), and a steward. He was Eleazar of Damascus, the chief steward of Abraham.

"And Abram said, ‘Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eleazar [Lazarus] of Damascus and lo, one born in my house is mine heir.’" Genesis 15:2–3

Long ago it was suggested that the Lazarus of the parable represented the Eleazar associated with Abraham (Geiger, JuJ Zejtschr., 1868, p. 196 sq.), but for some reason very few modern commentators have taken up the identification. But once this simple connection is made, a flood of light emerges on the scene which can interpret the parable with real meaning.

The Lazarus of the parable represented Abraham’s faithful steward Eleazar. And faithful he was! Though he had been the legal heir to receive all of Abraham’s possessions (Genesis 15:3), Abraham gave him an assignment which was to result in his own disinheritance. But the Bible shows he carried out the orders of Abraham in a precise (and faithful) way.

"And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house [Eleazar], that ruled over all that he had, ‘Put, I pray thee, your hand under my thigh: and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that you shall not take a wife unto my son [Isaac] of the daughters of the Canaanites.’"Genesis 24:2–3

Eleazar agreed to do what Abraham desired, although the fulfillment of his task meant the complete abandonment of Eleazar’s claim to any of Abraham’s inheritance—both present and future! Each step that Eleazar took northward to procure a wife for Isaac was a step towards his own disqualification. Eleazar recognized this, for he admitted to Laban, Rebecca’s brother, that "unto him [Isaac] hath he [Abraham] given all that he hath" (Genesis 24:36). There was nothing left for him! Thus, Eleazar’s faithfulness to Abraham resulted in his own disinheritance from all the promises of blessing which God had given to Abraham. They were now given to Isaac and his future family. That inheritance included wealth, prestige, power, kingship, priesthood, and the land of Canaan as an "everlasting" possession. But now Eleazar was "cast out." He and his seed would inherit nothing. Thus, the parable calls Lazarus a "beggar" who possessed nothing of earthly worth.

Who Was the Rich Man?

The Rich Man was an actual son of Abraham. Christ had him calling Abraham his "father" (Luke 16:24) and Abraham acknowledged him as "son" (verse 25). Such sonship made the Rich Man a legal possessor of Abraham’s inheritance. Indeed, the Rich Man had all the physical blessings promised to Abraham’s seed. He wore purple, the symbol of kingship, a sign that the Davidic or Messianic Kingdom was his. He wore linen, the symbol of priesthood, showing that God’s ordained priests and the Temple were his. Who was this Rich Man who possessed these blessings while living on the earth?

The Israelite tribe that finally assumed possession of both the kingdom and priesthood, and the tribe which became the representative one of all the promises given to Abraham, was Judah. There can not be the slightest doubt of this when the whole parable is analyzed. Remember that Judah had "five brothers." The Rich Man also had the same (verse 28).

"The sons of Leah; [1] Reuben; Jacob’s firstborn, and [2] Simeon, and [3] Levi, and Judah, and [4] Issachar, and [5] Zebulun." Genesis 35:23

"And Leah said ... ‘now will my husband be pleased to dwell with me; for I have born him six sons.’" Genesis 30:20

Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and physical), Christ was showing that he had been unfaithful with his responsibilities. When the true inheritance was to be given, Judah was in "hades" and "in torment" while Lazarus (Eleazar, the faithful steward) was now in Abraham’s bosom. He was finally received into the "everlasting habitations" (verse 9).

"A Great Gulf Fixed"

The parable says that a "great gulf" [Greek: chasm] was fixed between the position of Abraham and Eleazar and that of the Rich Man [Judah]. What was this chasm? The Greek word means a deep ravine or valley — a great canyon with cliffs on each side. Its two sides were also "afar off" from each other (verse 23). It was "a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence" (verse 26). Note the italicized word "pass." In all other occasions of its grammatical use in the New Testament, the word was used to denote a passage over water. And in Greek imagery of the abodes of the dead, there was usually some kind of water barrier between the righteous dead and the wicked — either a river or ocean. This is also represented in Jewish conceptions of the compartments for the dead — "by a chasm, by water, and by light above it" (Enoch, ch. 22).

It was also common for many chasms (those described in Greek literature) to have water in their regions of deepest declivity. Let us now look at such a chasm from a Palestinian point of view. In that environment there is only one possible identification for the "great gulf" of the parable if it is to fit the meaning of the Greek chasm precisely. This would be the great rift valley between the highlands of Trans-Jordan and the hill country of Ephraim in which the River Jordan flows. This fault line is the greatest and longest visible chasm on earth. And what a spectacular sight it is! As one looks over the chasm he sees impressive cliffs on each side, a desert in its wastelands, and the River Jordan meandering in the center.

Identifying the chasm of the parable with the Jordan rift unfolds a beautiful symbolic story well recognized in contemporary Jewish allegorical narratives of the time. In the center of this "gulf" was the River Jordan. It divided the original land of promise given to Abraham from ordinary Gentile lands. The west side of Jordan represented the area that the Bible considered the original Holyland. As the angel said to Joshua: "Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon stand is holy. And Joshua did so" (Joshua 5:15). When the Israelites finally entered the chasm of the Jordan and crossed the river, they then considered themselves in the Holyland the land promised to Abraham and his seed!

Entering the land of Canaan (west of Jordan) was also a symbol of final spiritual salvation. The author of Hebrews recognized that Israel’s crossing of the River Jordan under Joshua (and the taking of the land of Canaan) was typical of Christians obtaining their true "rest" in the future Kingdom of God (Hebrews 3:1–4:11). Even American Negro spirituals with which so many of us are familiar ("crossing into Canaan’s land") are reflective of this early symbolic theme.

Recall also that the Rich Man was depicted as being in flames of judgment (verse 24). In this same rift valley were formerly located the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah which were "set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7).

"Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those who should after live ungodly." 2 Peter 2:6

When the allegorical applications are understood, the teaching of the parable becomes simple and instructive. The theme of Christ’s narrative was true stewardship. Though Eleazar [Lazarus], Abraham’s trusted steward, had disinherited himself from earthly rewards by his faithful obedience to Abraham’s wishes, he was later to find himself (after death, when true inheritance comes) in Abraham’s bosom. But the chief representative of Abraham’s actual sons (Judah, the spiritual leader of all the Israelite tribes) remained East of Canaan as far as true inheritance was concerned. He had inherited all the physical blessings while in the flesh, but at death he was not allowed to pass the spiritual Jordan into the final Abrahamic inheritance.

Like Moses, because of rebellion, he was not allowed to pass the "great gulf" to enjoy the land of milk and honey. True enough, Judah had been blessed with the kingship, priesthood, the divine scriptures, the prophets, and other untold blessings, but he was not allowed to enjoy the true spiritual blessings of the future because he was unfaithful with his sonship and was refusing the true message of salvation offered by God’s own Son. Christ said: "Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

~~~This is part of a longer article found here - http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/Hel...arable.htm

:peace: Willa

The first thing we need to prove is whether or not this IS a parable, because so many believe it's a literal occurrence. They say, "It reads that there was a certain rich man, and it does not say, 'this is a parable.'"

I agree; so how do we prove it's a parable? And in order to prove it is a parable, it's necessary to show that if interpreted as a literal statement, it would be an absurdity and anything that would be an absurdity to interpret literally, we would be bound to look upon as a parable and seek to find some parabolical interpretation. That this would be an absurdity if taken literally, note this.

It doesn't say that the rich man was a bad man; it doesn't say that the poor man was a good man; there was a certain rich man. To be rich is not necessarily an evil. There have been good rich men. Abraham was very rich. Our heavenly Father is very rich. It is not poverty, merely that makes goodness, is it? And our Lord is rich and for our sakes became poor. So we are not to think that riches merely, mean wickedness. We do not read that this rich man was a bad man, or profane, or anything of the kind, but merely he was rich and fared sumptuously every day--ate three or four good square meals each day, and wore purple and fine linen; that was his crime; whatever it was, it was connected with that matter somehow. Now to say that any man would have to be roasted to all eternity because he wore purple or because he wore fine linen, and had plenty to eat, and because he was very rich, would not be rational.

Then take the poor man. There is nothing said about his being a particularly good poor man, nor that he prayed a great deal--not a suggestion about his ever praying; he was simply a poor man and he lay at the rich man's gate, and he was full of sores, and the dogs came along and licked his sores, and he ate of the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and he was carried by the messengers to Abraham's bosom. Now to take that literally would be also absurd. It would mean, in the first place, that the only persons that would go to Abraham's bosom would be some who had laid at some rich man's gate. That would not take you and me in--at least would not take me in, for I never had any dogs lick my sores, and I never ate crumbs, etc. So you see it would be an absurdity. Besides, if Abraham's bosom only had two or three lusty looking Lazaruses, he would have his arms strteched out trying to get them into his bosom. If it is literal at all, the whole thing is literal, and if it is symbolic at all, the whole thing is symbolic. Therefore I say without any question, this is a parable, because to take it literally would be to involve ourselves in statements of absurdity.

Willa

Very interesting indeed! Thank you. I had never heard it explained this way.

Just a thought regarding "Abraham gave him an assignment which was to result in his own disinheritance." Why would Eleazar get the inheritance when Isaac was alive and the rightful heir? Was the house steward included in the inheritance?

What i appreciated most about this parable, not whether it is to be taken literal or not or whether it gives us a glimpse of the afterlife or not, is that it fits with what Jesus said at Matt 25:34-46 about the illustration of the sheep and the goats. The sheep are those who feed the poor and take care of the needy. That is what Christ will judge people on. Whether we help others or not.

That is why the Rich Man was judged so harshly and sent to an undesirable place. He didnt help the poor man Lazarus sitting at his gate. That's what he was judged on.

It causes me to think if i am doing enough to help those less fortunate than me. Does that make sense?

The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.

Shabbat Shalom Yanis, :hibye: You make sense to me.

When we have much, we are expected to do much with it.

I've lost track of the amount of intepretations and explanations I've read concerning this parable. There's always a lot more in Jesus' words than we can ever understand, but I do believe that, if the was unconciousness after death, then Jesus would not have told a story where the characters died and then went somewhere else. Jesus only tells the truth after all, he's not going to pepetuate a lie to make a point.

Dang!

...and I was about to threaten my friends and family with another dose of hellfire...or maybe a little "hell on earth" shunning speech. Why do folks insist on taking all the fun out of religion?

Don't people realize that love must be forced? How could anyone ever love without the (proven successful for millenia) tools of emotional bondage?

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

gus



p.s. It's one of those days. Please excuse my sarcasm.

It's okay Gus, there are plenty of other ways of threatening and manipulating people......helfire's sooooo 19th century don't you think. The modern, prograssive threat is being destroyed horribly at armageddon....:friends:



Of course love has to be forced.....what, you think the Holy Spirit is actually capable of changing us on the inside........????? Surely not!!!!!!

(see, sarcasm is catching...)

Maybe it's just that Jesus knows the truth about the afterlife, and wants us to know too?

I think you are over thinking it. God revealed world rulership to Daniel by visions of bizarre hybrid beasts, yet, we don't wonder if infact he was giving us insight into the animal kingdom.

It is a symbol and must be interpreted with spirit. Just the same as Christs' words that we must eat of his blood and flesh. The carnal man will be startled by these words. Only those who really want to know what he is saying would understand.

I see where you're going with this Andrew but i cant help but wonder if it is literal. Didnt Daniel explain who the beasts represent? We are not left to wonder if they were literal.

Whenever Jesus gave parables he would offer explanations to his followers afterwards. But why not this one?

Can it be because it is self explaining. Now dont think i necessarily believe in a literal hell i am just trying to find out the reason for this parable.

Everyone seems to have an interpretation, but why dont we let the bible interpret itself?

Hi Yannis,

Thanks for the reply back. You stated:

I see your angle there, so let's approach it from that stand point. How do you yourself interpret the Bible? Do you take each passage alone and try to understand it without the help of other scripture?

For instance, Jesus also was quoted as saying:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple."

Yet, Jesus also said this:
"'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

If we look at these two passages alone it seems rather contradictory.

But Jesus also said:
"No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.

So we then can understand that when Jesus said to hate our family and ourselves he really meant that we can not put them first above following God. But would we have gotten as much out of it, had we only read the first part?

My point is not to show you the answer to your specific question, but to an approach that is important when trying to understand anything from the scriptures.

Jesus in particular said many things that were confusing and alarming, and often times it takes earnest effort and patience on our part to understand.

Thanks Andrew. You are right, we dont just take one verse and that's it. I was implying that by letting the scriptures interpret itself we are left without an explanation on the parable. Since there was none then maybe what he said is what he meant. The Lord would not contradict another scripture to prove a point.

Ok, so my point is. Is the parable, if taken as reality, in harmony with scriptures about death, the after life, God's love, etc? What do you think?