Luke 16:19-31 The Rich Man and Lazarus

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

Oh another lesson is your fate is decided when you die.

 

What do u mean.

 

 

Luk 16:26  And beside all this, between us and you there is 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.

 

 

 

But according to shiloh357 and ProphecyKid, this whole parable is not talking about the afterlife or the fate thereof. Rather I think the whole parable is talking about the condition of the spirit of the pharisee not repenting. Parables have no timeline, they rather teach moral lessons and speak to the heart. Repent from mammom and turn to God is the lesson I believe. Do not harden your hearts so much so as to reject God. If this is truly a parable then the people in it are fiction, rather the truth lies within the lesson learned. (Luke 16:30 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.) If a nonbeliever reads this, their fate isn't decided yet. They can still repent.

 

You are exactly right, DRS81.

 

The Rich man in the parable represents the pharisees who cared nothing for the poor but were often wealthy men.  They got the best seats at the synagogue.  They were honored as they walked down the streets.   They were seen as "the men of God" while those who were poor were disenfranchised by these same "men  of God."  Jesus was telling them that their fortunes were about to be reversed and the poor people they despised in life will enter Kingdom and they who were thought to be the prime examples of godliness wil be in hell.

[enoob57]

I don't think this parable proves that.

There is quite a debate of it being parable!

What is the debate about enoob?

No where in the account are we given permission to call it a parable... even the naming is specific

to individuals and that is not found anywhere else in any other known parable! You do not name that

which is not! Love, Steven

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

I don't think this parable proves that.

There is quite a debate of it being parable!

 

What is the debate about enoob?

 

No where in the account are we given permission to call it a parable... even the naming is specific

to individuals and that is not found anywhere else in any other known parable! You do not name that

which is not! Love, Steven

 

I was common among the Rabbis to use the names of real people in parables.   In some cases, they even used the names of famous Rabbis.   That Jesus used real people doesn't mean this is not a parable.  And from a literary perspective, it is a parable. 

[enoob57]

I don't think this parable proves that.

There is quite a debate of it being parable!

What is the debate about enoob?

No where in the account are we given permission to call it a parable... even the naming is specific

to individuals and that is not found anywhere else in any other known parable! You do not name that

which is not! Love, Steven

I was common among the Rabbis to use the names of real people in parables.   In some cases, they even used the names of famous Rabbis.   That Jesus used real people doesn't mean this is not a parable.  And from a literary perspective, it is a parable.

I was speaking Bible specific when I used the term 'any other parable'... Shiloh please indicate

the literary device you speak of to determine the parable aspect of this account? Thanks, Love, Steven

[other one]

doesn't a parable have to be a true to life story that would have to be possibly true?  Does it matter if it's actually true or a setting that could actually happen?

 

I guess what I'm asking is does it really matter if it's an actual story?

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think this parable proves that.

There is quite a debate of it being parable!

 

What is the debate about enoob?

 

No where in the account are we given permission to call it a parable... even the naming is specific

to individuals and that is not found anywhere else in any other known parable! You do not name that

which is not! Love, Steven

 

I was common among the Rabbis to use the names of real people in parables.   In some cases, they even used the names of famous Rabbis.   That Jesus used real people doesn't mean this is not a parable.  And from a literary perspective, it is a parable.

 

I was speaking Bible specific when I used the term 'any other parable'... Shiloh please indicate

the literary device you speak of to determine the parable aspect of this account? Thanks, Love, Steven

 

The english word, "parable" is comprised of two words from the Greek language.  The word "para" means "beside" or "along the side of"   The word "balla"  means, "to place" or "to set."    Thus the word parable means, "to place alongside."   A parable is a culturally realistic story that is placed alongside a truth or principle the story is supposed to illustrate.  When I say "culturally realistic"  what I mean is that story as to have elements that are part of the world the hearers are familiar with.  To create a story with elements the hearer has no point of reference for, would be confusing to say the least.  To be culturally realistic, the parable would have to have a story that could have happened whether the story actually happened or not.

 

The story of rich man and Lazarus is true-to-life because the extreme disparity between the rich and poor was part of world of the hearers.  The eschatological reference to the "Bosom of Abraham" was something that many of the hearers would have been familiar with.  The use of Abraham was typical of parables, in that the ancient Rabbis often used Abraham, Moses and other biblical characters as sources for these kinds of didactic stories.  Everything about the style is consistent with it being a parable and their is absolutely no reason to doubt that it is legitimate parable.   In fact no scholar calls it anything else. It occurs in the most parable-rich gospel, that of Luke and is embedded in a group of other parables.  Clearly the writer himself considered it a parable, as he included in the context of a group other parables that Jesus uttered.  So contextually it is parablolic and from a historical and genre perspective it is parabolic. 

[ProphecyKid]

doesn't a parable have to be a true to life story that would have to be possibly true?  Does it matter if it's actually true or a setting that could actually happen?

 

I guess what I'm asking is does it really matter if it's an actual story?

A parable is never an actual story or else it would be a true story, not a parable. If you take the parable of the rich man and lazarus literally you run into so many problems. You have a guy who is in torment, burning yet he can speak and his body parts seem in tact, his tongue is is working, talking to father Abraham in heaven. No one at that time believed that when a man dies he goes to heaven or hell. You can't find a single scripture in he old testament that you can twist to support that, they clearly did not believe that. And this story is all happening before the judgement. So many issues if you take this parable as being lieral. 

[Guest shiloh357]

No one at that time believed that when a man dies he goes to heaven or hell. You can't find a single scripture in he old testament that you can twist to support that, they clearly did not believe that.

 

Yes, they did believe in going to hell.   The Jewish theology of the first century was not shaped by the Bible alone.  

[ProphecyKid]

 

No one at that time believed that when a man dies he goes to heaven or hell. You can't find a single scripture in he old testament that you can twist to support that, they clearly did not believe that.

 

Yes, they did believe in going to hell.   The Jewish theology of the first century was not shaped by the Bible alone.  

 

 

Not at all, they did not believe in hell as many of us believe as in hell being a place of torment. They believe that Sheol (hell) was he place of the dead or the grave. 

[Guest DRS81]

You are exactly right, DRS81.

 

The Rich man in the parable represents the pharisees who cared nothing for the poor but were often wealthy men.  They got the best seats at the synagogue.  They were honored as they walked down the streets.   They were seen as "the men of God" while those who were poor were disenfranchised by these same "men  of God."  Jesus was telling them that their fortunes were about to be reversed and the poor people they despised in life will enter Kingdom and they who were thought to be the prime examples of godliness wil be in hell.

 

But if this parable is meant for nonbelievers to WAKE UP and repent, then why isn't Luke 16:19-31 changing their unbelief all around the world? Most nonbelievers don't even read the Bible.