Lazarus and the Rich Man

[ThatGirlAgain]

Other than my very first Hi! post this is my first ‘for real’ thread. Hope it is not too big of a bomb. I am looking for some Christian perspectives on this. Or knowledgeable non-Christians for that matter. Anyone?

The Gospel of Luke tells the story of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man. The rich man lives well while poor Lazarus at his gate starves. When Lazarus dies he is “carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom�. When the rich man dies he is tormented in hell.

We may note some interesting features of this story.

* Lazarus and the rich man each go to their rewards immediately after death. (vv 22-23)

* Jesus is telling the story during his ministry it is before the crucifixion and resurrection, that is, before the act of redemption.

* Abraham says that the way to avoid suffering in Hades is the Law and the Prophets (vv 27-29)

Here is the story in context:

Luke 16:19-31

19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20 But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21 desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
27 “Then he said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’�

"Scripture taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved."
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=NKJV

NOTE: Although the New King James Version of the Bible (NKJV) is copyrighted, the above usage is legal by the published terms of usage. I picked this one because it was in readable English but still had lenient copyright stipulations. Don’t want no trouble with the law.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Ne ... ible/#copy

Comments and questions

1. Relative to: “carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom�

Abraham is the First Patriarch of Judaism. He is not God.

Question for debate: Is there a difference between being at Abraham’s side and being in heaven in the Christian sense?


2. Relative to: Lazarus and the rich man each go to their rewards immediately after death. (vv 22-23)

In 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and again in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16 Paul says that those who die are asleep but will rise from the dead at the end of days to meet their fate.

In addition Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 14, Luke 20 and John 11 all refer to a future resurrection with the apparent implication that nothing happens to the dead until then.

Recall that the rich man is suffering in Hades and talking while his brothers are still alive. Also Lazarus is also clearly awake since the rich man asks that he be sent as a messenger to the rich man’s brothers.

Question for debate: How can the tradition of ‘death = sleep’ followed by a resurrection at the end of days be reconciled with Lazarus and the rich man meeting their fates immediately after death?


3. Relative to: Jesus is telling the story during his ministry it is before the crucifixion and resurrection, that is, before the act of redemption.

Christian perspectives on the fate of those who died before the sacrifice of Jesus tend to fall into three camps:

a) No one who did not believe in Jesus can be saved. This includes everyone who never heard of Jesus, for example, those who died beforehand.

b) The righteous who preceded Jesus waited in a kind of limbo until Jesus came to preach the gospel to them and allow then to be redeemed.

c) All righteous persons can reach heaven regardless of when they were born, e.g., the Catholic doctrine of Baptism of Desire.

Question for debate: Can the immediate reward of Lazarus be reconciled with (a) or (b)?

4. Relative to: Abraham says that the way to avoid suffering in Hades is the Law and the Prophets

Question for debate: How does this influence any of the above considerations?

[McCulloch]

I won't deal with everything raised in the opening post, but there is one anachronistic approach to the timing issue.

To some, God is seen to exist in a timeless state. To God, past, present and future all just exist; he transcends time. Thus, if when you die, you go to be with God, you also will transcend time. So, from that point of view, immediate and at the final trump, are indistinguishable.

I call this an anachronistic approach, since this way to view time was not evident until long after the New Testament was written and if there are any clues that this approach should be used, they are (ahem) subtle and ambiguous.

But that has never stopped True Believers from making claims before.

[ThatGirlAgain]

I won't deal with everything raised in the opening post, but there is one anachronistic approach to the timing issue.

To some, God is seen to exist in a timeless state. To God, past, present and future all just exist; he transcends time. Thus, if when you die, you go to be with God, you also will transcend time. So, from that point of view, immediate and at the final trump, are indistinguishable.

I call this an anachronistic approach, since this way to view time was not evident until long after the New Testament was written and if there are any clues that this approach should be used, they are (ahem) subtle and ambiguous.

But that has never stopped True Believers from making claims before.

Them pesky Catholic theologians again. Nobody can be totally with God.

Heaven
III. Supernatural character of heaven and the beatific vision

(5) Although the blessed see God, they do not comprehend Him, because God is absolutely incomprehensible to every created intellect, and He cannot grant to any creature the power of comprehending Him as He comprehends Himself...The blessed comprehend God neither intensively nor extensively — not intensively, because their vision has not that infinite clearness with which God is knowable and with which He knows Himself, nor extensively, because their vision does not actually and clearly extend to everything that God sees in His Essence. For they cannot by a single act of their intellect represent every possible creature individually, clearly, and distinctly, as God does; such an act would be infinite, and an infinite act is incompatible with the nature of a created and finite intellect.

Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm#III

[ThatGirlAgain]

I won't deal with everything raised in the opening post, but there is one anachronistic approach to the timing issue.

To some, God is seen to exist in a timeless state. To God, past, present and future all just exist; he transcends time. Thus, if when you die, you go to be with God, you also will transcend time. So, from that point of view, immediate and at the final trump, are indistinguishable.

I call this an anachronistic approach, since this way to view time was not evident until long after the New Testament was written and if there are any clues that this approach should be used, they are (ahem) subtle and ambiguous.

But that has never stopped True Believers from making claims before.

A more serious answer this time.

Some Christian takes on heaven involve union with the godhead as you alluded to. The Catholic stance is a bit different as I noted above. But the view of the afterlife presented here is one of the Jewish ones of that era. The "Bosom of Abraham" was a euphemism for Sheol, the abode of the righteous dead awaiting judgment day. (As I hoped someone would have chimed in with.) It is therefore apparently not the final destination as conceived in this 'Judaism becoming Christianity' process. The final stage is ambiguous here and might in fact be a timeless 'union with the godhead'. I was looking for someone who might have some insights into how this evolution happened.

[McCulloch]

Them pesky Catholic theologians again. Nobody can be totally with God.

I did not mean totally with God, I meant in that timeless state, where God is.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Them pesky Catholic theologians again. Nobody can be totally with God.

I did not mean totally with God, I meant in that timeless state, where God is.

Yes, I understood what you meant and it is a valid point. What connection can there be between unlimited existence and our limited existence? But if that connection can be made, then the boundaries that define 'us' are gone and 'we' no longer exist.

Of course the glib theologians would come back with "God is already everywhere and there seems to be no problem." Followed no doubt by ten pounds of verbiage explaining what that means.

[notachance]

Hi ThatGirlAgain,

This is a really well thought out point about Christianity.

What it amounts to is this: Some portions of the Bible say things in clear and no uncertain terms. Other portions of the Bible say diametrically opposite things in equally clear and no uncertain terms.

Conclusion: It seems more likely than not that the Bible was written by a group of confused iron age simpletons who had no idea what they were talking about.

I know that your position is much more nuanced than this, but as much as I respect that, I subscribe to the notion that not all subjects are worthy of a nuanced positions.

[Mithrae]

2. Relative to: Lazarus and the rich man each go to their rewards immediately after death. (vv 22-23)

In 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and again in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16 Paul says that those who die are asleep but will rise from the dead at the end of days to meet their fate.

In addition Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 14, Luke 20 and John 11 all refer to a future resurrection with the apparent implication that nothing happens to the dead until then.

Recall that the rich man is suffering in Hades and talking while his brothers are still alive. Also Lazarus is also clearly awake since the rich man asks that he be sent as a messenger to the rich man’s brothers.

Question for debate: How can the tradition of ‘death = sleep’ followed by a resurrection at the end of days be reconciled with Lazarus and the rich man meeting their fates immediately after death?

In Mark 12 etc. Jesus says with reference to Abraham that God is the God of the living, not the dead - and he also speaks of a future resurrection. Similarly in John 11 he says that through him, though someone dies they will live. In Revelation 4 John describes 24 elders before the throne of God, and in 6:10 the souls of those slain for their belief cry out to God.

The resurrection generally refers to the physical resurrection of the body; these passages suggest that the soul lives, even while the body is gone and we await the final judgement & resurrection. In those passages Paul speaks by analogy (obviously death isn't 'sleep' in any real sense), looking forward to the final resurrection rather than expounding a doctrine of what happens in between. The parable about Lazarus is just a parable, so I'm not sure how many Christian theologians would conclude from it that the wicked dead actually suffer before the final judgement. But Revelation and Jesus' comment to the thief in Luke that "today you'll dine with me in paradise" (or somesuch) do suggest that there is peace and joy for the justified dead, at least.

With Christ's return believers receive their bodily resurrection, followed by the millenial kingdom (Revelation, Ezekiel?). In Revelation 20 we see that at the final judgement Hades gives up its dead, the Book of Life is consulted and those whose names are not in it are judged according to their acts as recorded in other books. (Suggesting, along with a few other passages, that 'hell' may not be eternal - though obviously the bible gives a rather confused picture on that point.) I don't know of anything clarifying whether non-Christians whose names are in the Book of Life participate in the resurrection of Christ's return and the millenial kingdom, or Christians only.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Hi ThatGirlAgain,

This is a really well thought out point about Christianity.

What it amounts to is this: Some portions of the Bible say things in clear and no uncertain terms. Other portions of the Bible say diametrically opposite things in equally clear and no uncertain terms.

Conclusion: It seems more likely than not that the Bible was written by a group of confused iron age simpletons who had no idea what they were talking about.

I know that your position is much more nuanced than this, but as much as I respect that, I subscribe to the notion that not all subjects are worthy of a nuanced positions.

My position is not only more nuanced, it is poles apart. Different parts of the Bible were written by different people for different audiences and different purposes. Not only are they different but in some cases (IMO) actively opposed. If I ever win the lottery and do not have to work and go to night school I will do my dog and pony show about how Luke was written to counteract Matthew....IMO that is. But to sell that effectively on this board would take considerable time and effort, more than I can reasonably spare and still have a life.

The Bible - as well as the parts that got left out - constitute a window into the workings of history and an important part of how the world got where it is today. Ignoring it because one does not believe in it is like refusing to study those parts of history where war happened because one is a pacifist. That is actually not an unreasonable individual choice but it is not appropriate to discourage others from doing it on the grounds of it being 'unworthy' of study.

[ThatGirlAgain]

2. Relative to: Lazarus and the rich man each go to their rewards immediately after death. (vv 22-23)

In 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 and again in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-16 Paul says that those who die are asleep but will rise from the dead at the end of days to meet their fate.

In addition Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 14, Luke 20 and John 11 all refer to a future resurrection with the apparent implication that nothing happens to the dead until then.

Recall that the rich man is suffering in Hades and talking while his brothers are still alive. Also Lazarus is also clearly awake since the rich man asks that he be sent as a messenger to the rich man’s brothers.

Question for debate: How can the tradition of ‘death = sleep’ followed by a resurrection at the end of days be reconciled with Lazarus and the rich man meeting their fates immediately after death?

In Mark 12 etc. Jesus says with reference to Abraham that God is the God of the living, not the dead - and he also speaks of a future resurrection. Similarly in John 11 he says that through him, though someone dies they will live. In Revelation 4 John describes 24 elders before the throne of God, and in 6:10 the souls of those slain for their belief cry out to God.

The resurrection generally refers to the physical resurrection of the body; these passages suggest that the soul lives, even while the body is gone and we await the final judgement & resurrection. In those passages Paul speaks by analogy (obviously death isn't 'sleep' in any real sense), looking forward to the final resurrection rather than expounding a doctrine of what happens in between. The parable about Lazarus is just a parable, so I'm not sure how many Christian theologians would conclude from it that the wicked dead actually suffer before the final judgement. But Revelation and Jesus' comment to the thief in Luke that "today you'll dine with me in paradise" (or somesuch) do suggest that there is peace and joy for the justified dead, at least.

With Christ's return believers receive their bodily resurrection, followed by the millenial kingdom (Revelation, Ezekiel?). In Revelation 20 we see that at the final judgement Hades gives up its dead, the Book of Life is consulted and those whose names are not in it are judged according to their acts as recorded in other books. (Suggesting, along with a few other passages, that 'hell' may not be eternal - though obviously the bible gives a rather confused picture on that point.) I don't know of anything clarifying whether non-Christians whose names are in the Book of Life participate in the resurrection of Christ's return and the millenial kingdom, or Christians only.

Great! That is exactly the kind of dialog I was looking to start. But now I have FOUR of your posts I have to think about and research before I can properly answer. I will get there...