Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!

[TheLearner]

The great Roman Catholic myth.

Brother, friend it is history get over it.

“Eighty-six years I have been his servant. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” These words were spoken by Polycarp. Polycarp was the bishop at the church at Smyrna. Last week we looked at Ignatius. Ignatius was bishop at Antioch. Both Antioch and Smyrna were significant cities in the New Testament. And there’s another connection. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were the disciples of John. In fact there is this great legend in church history that as Ignatius was John’s disciple, and Polycarp was John’s disciple, then Polycarp was also Ignatius’ disciple. Polycarp would go on to disciple Irenaeus. And Irenaeus would go on—now here’s a great name from the early church—he would go on to disciple Hippolytus. So there we have this great length through the first two centuries of the church’s life back to John."
https://www.5minutesinchurchhistory.com/two-disciples-of-john-polycarp/

 

[TheLearner]

I'm pretty sure no rich Jew would allow unclean animals - especially mongrel dogs - inside his gate.

Lazarus is outside the gate with the dogs, is he not?

Also, as pointed out by someone the dogs were licking him.

 

[Phoneman-777]

The reason for not agreeing with you on assigning the beggar gentile status simply because the dogs licked his sores where he lay at the gate of the rich man is not "strange." It is normal. Your reasoning is strange. It is STRAINED and it if forced and we know that you see that it is but refuse to concede it.

If you take a survey of bible students who read this most will not agree with your attempt to force it to say that the beggar is a gentile based on the mention of a gate and dogs and trying to connect it to those scriptures you have mentioned.

The custom was that food scraps were tossed to dogs at these gates of these estates and this beggar was laid there, to scavenge what he could to survive another day.

A common scenario from daily life is the format of a parable is it not?

This common scenario of beggars at gates of the rich waiting for scraps thrown out to dogs does not require them to be gentiles. You are severely polluting the parable with your forced gentile application that is not necessary to understand the lesson. There is absolutely no way that the hearers, hearing the word gate and dogs would make the assumption you are trying to force.

Do some research into first century customs and daily life at the time of Christ. There would be far more Jewish beggars at the gates of Jewish rich men in Jerusalem at the time of Christ than there were gentiles.

Most of the beggars and the handicapped that show up in all of the stories in the Gospel records were Jewish.

If most of the beggars that waited at the gates of the rich for scraps to be thrown out to dogs were Jews then one would need to specify that this one was a gentile by making a point other than the gate and the dogs since the hearers of this story would naturally picture Jewish beggars at the rich mans gate waiting for scraps to be thrown to dogs.

Something they saw everyday. Jewish beggars at rich peoples gates waiting for scraps to be thrown out. It is not logical, or persuasive for you to insist that only gentiles would have been understood by the hearers without further specification.

If gentiles were a minority at the gates of Jewish rich people throwing scraps out to dogs and most of the beggars would be Jewish in that "daily common scene familiar to his hearers" then something more specific would need to be said besides gate and dogs to indicate that this beggar being near a gate where dogs were trying to get those scraps, was a gentile.

If many beggars in this scenario were Jewish then no one would think the way you are trying to make us think, "that the beggar must have been a gentile because gates and dogs are mentioned" and they would say your reasoning is strange.

You have assumed that there were no Jewish beggars doing this every day. And what makes you think that is the case? If you knew that most of the beggars doing this. (waiting at gates of Jewish rich people for scraps to be thrown out to dogs) were Jewish beggars, then your insisting that Jesus expected us to understand that the beggar was a gentile would be STRANGE.

Let's see how much in common there is with Gentile Syrophoenician woman and Gentile Lazarus, shall we?

Gentile woman was suffering with a family health crisis​

Gentile Lazarus was suffering with a personal health crisis​

​

Gentile woman was seeking a blessing from Jewish Messiah​

Gentile Lazarus was seeking a blessing from Jewish Rich Man​

​

Gentile woman was counted as an outsider​

Gentile Lazarus was outside the gate​

​

Gentile woman was counted as a "dog"​

Gentile Lazarus was among the "dogs"​

​

Gentile woman desired the crumbs which fell from the Jewish table​

Gentile Lazarus desired the crumbs which fell from the Jewish table​

​

Gentile woman in the end received a blessing from God​

Gentile Lazarus in the end received a blessing from God​

​

Now, you may disagree that Lazarus represents the Gentiles, but is really fair to argue that it's a "stretch in reasoning" after no less than 6 points of commonality?

 

[TheLearner]

too tired to continue

 

[Amanuensis]

Let's see how much in common there is with Gentile Syrophoenician woman and Gentile Lazarus, shall we?

Gentile woman was suffering with a family health crisis​

Gentile Lazarus was suffering with a personal health crisis​

​

Gentile woman was seeking a blessing from Jewish Messiah​

Gentile Lazarus was seeking a blessing from Jewish Rich Man​

​

Gentile woman was counted as an outsider​

Gentile Lazarus was outside the gate​

​

Gentile woman was counted as a "dog"​

Gentile Lazarus was among the "dogs"​

​

Gentile woman desired the crumbs which fell from the Jewish table​

Gentile Lazarus desired the crumbs which fell from the Jewish table​

​

Gentile woman in the end received a blessing from God​

Gentile Lazarus in the end received a blessing from God​

​

Now, you may disagree that Lazarus represents the Gentiles, but is really fair to argue that it's a "stretch in reasoning" after no less than 6 points of commonality?

I see that you think that connecting dots like this makes sense to you, but it does not work when applying the rule of hermeneutics as to answering the question "How would those hearing this parable understand it?"

If it was more common for the beggar at the gate of a rich man waiting for scraps to be thrown out to the dogs to be a Jewish beggar, in the city of Jerusalem, then they would not have connected the dots you are trying to force.

If it is true that most of the beggars who waited at such gates (not of the city but of a house) were Jewish Beggars then it would not be possible that they would have understood Lazarus to be a gentile just because he was at the gates waiting for scraps to be thrown to dogs, since most of the beggars who did that in Jerusalem were JEWS.

It is forced and should be so doubtful in your mind that you should not have much confidence that this is what was intended to be understood. It just can't be supported. It is too weak and to doubtful and reeks of forced application.

I understand why it catches the inexperienced in bible study off gaurd and appears to be a possible interpretation, but not once you really put yourself in the shoes of those who heard it. And not after you have studied how Jesus has no problem pointing out who is a gentile in his parables when he needs to make that point. This one he does not and the details of the parable don't suggest it, and if anything they support that he was probably a Jew, since if he was the dogs licking his sores would be far more humiliating than if he were a gentile, though it would probably be humiliating to most people Jew or gentile unless he or she is one of those extreme dog lovers that thinks such a thing is an act of kindness for dogs to do that or that there is healing in the licks which some have suggested, but I believe Jesus point was that he was humiliated by this dog licking, on top of everything else that he suffered.

I cannot see the connection that you are trying to make. I don't believe Jesus intended it, nor do I believe it is the same context. And it would be too easy for Jesus to call him a gentile if that was important. Or use something more obvious than putting him in a position that many Jews were in and expect us to know that this one was not a Jew.

I suppose if I presented something from Josephus or some other historian that proved that many Jewish beggars would have been at the gates of rich people waiting for scraps to be thrown out to dogs then you would concede that we cannot be conclusive that this man was a gentile correct? Would you concede if there were such 1st century documentation about this?

 

[ChristianSubMissionary]

Brother, friend it is history get over it.

“Eighty-six years I have been his servant. How can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” These words were spoken by Polycarp. Polycarp was the bishop at the church at Smyrna. Last week we looked at Ignatius. Ignatius was bishop at Antioch. Both Antioch and Smyrna were significant cities in the New Testament. And there’s another connection. Both Ignatius and Polycarp were the disciples of John. In fact there is this great legend in church history that as Ignatius was John’s disciple, and Polycarp was John’s disciple, then Polycarp was also Ignatius’ disciple. Polycarp would go on to disciple Irenaeus. And Irenaeus would go on—now here’s a great name from the early church—he would go on to disciple Hippolytus. So there we have this great length through the first two centuries of the church’s life back to John."
https://www.5minutesinchurchhistory.com/two-disciples-of-john-polycarp/

I know the Roman Catholic mythology better than you think. You do not have any idea about my background.

 

[Amanuensis]

I see that you think that connecting dots like this makes sense to you, but it does not work when applying the rule of hermeneutics as to answering the question "How would those hearing this parable understand it?"

If it was more common for the beggar at the gate of a rich man waiting for scraps to be thrown out to the dogs to be a Jewish beggar, in the city of Jerusalem, then they would not have connected the dots you are trying to force.

If it is true that most of the beggars who waited at such gates (not of the city but of a house) were Jewish Beggars then it would not be possible that they would have understood Lazarus to be a gentile just because he was at the gates waiting for scraps to be thrown to dogs, since most of the beggars who did that in Jerusalem were JEWS.

It is forced and should be so doubtful in your mind that you should not have much confidence that this is what was intended to be understood. It just can't be supported. It is too weak and to doubtful and reeks of forced application.

I understand why it catches the inexperienced in bible study off gaurd and appears to be a possible interpretation, but not once you really put yourself in the shoes of those who heard it. And not after you have studied how Jesus has no problem pointing out who is a gentile in his parables when he needs to make that point. This one he does not and the details of the parable don't suggest it, and if anything they support that he was probably a Jew, since if he was the dogs licking his sores would be far more humiliating than if he were a gentile, though it would probably be humiliating to most people Jew or gentile unless he or she is one of those extreme dog lovers that thinks such a thing is an act of kindness for dogs to do that or that there is healing in the licks which some have suggested, but I believe Jesus point was that he was humiliated by this dog licking, on top of everything else that he suffered.

I cannot see the connection that you are trying to make. I don't believe Jesus intended it, nor do I believe it is the same context. And it would be too easy for Jesus to call him a gentile if that was important. Or use something more obvious than putting him in a position that many Jews were in and expect us to know that this one was not a Jew.

I suppose if I presented something from Josephus or some other historian that proved that many Jewish beggars would have been at the gates of rich people waiting for scraps to be thrown out to dogs then you would concede that we cannot be conclusive that this man was a gentile correct? Would you concede if there were such 1st century documentation about this?

Also @Phoneman-777 Let me repeat as I have done many posts before, I am ok with applying this as a parable to teach a lesson about a theological truth. If you wanted to find a scripture that supported your idea that the beggar might be a gentile it would be this one:
in Matthew 8 concerning the Roman gentile centurion,
10When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. 11I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

This one looks like the same scenario or common belief of the Jews that Jesus had them imagining in the Richman and Lazarus parable. Abrahams Bosom was the place at the feast table (not cavity in his chest) Being at Abrahams Bosom would be the place next to the host on his side where you can face him. Just read about how they reclined at tables and what it mean to be at someone's bosom in arrangement at the table.

So since it was a common belief that there would be a time of sitting at the table with Abraham... the parable having Lazarus at Abrahams Bosom, simply repeats the common belief but the twist is that the rich man is not allowed a seat. One might try and say that because Jesus made this statement in Matt 8:11 that this is the gentiles seated at the table while the rich man is the unbelieving jews (or pharisees if you like), cast out.

I don't think it proves that Lazarus is supposed to be understood to be a gentile but it would be more persuasive in your line of reasoning than what you were trying to do with the gate and the dog reference.

 

[TheLearner]

I know the Roman Catholic mythology better than you think. You do not have any idea about my background.

Please explain your background brother. I am a historian. And, a lot of the anti-catholic stuff is proprganda. I am also, a ghost writer for other historians. Looking forward to your testimony.

 

[TheLearner]

read to here

 

[Duckybill]

Shema, anyone? Or are you going ignore this Command too.

Your hellbrush, not mine. Jesus is the Door to the House of God. No trap doors to hell.

You're calling Jesus a liar.

Revelation 1:18 (KJV)
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

 

[Duckybill]

How in the world does this undo anything I've said?

When you interpret what Jesus said to mean something totally different you are led by Satan.

 

[LactoseIntolerant]

You're calling Jesus a liar.

Revelation 1:18 (KJV)
18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Hellmongering again! Here is a more literal interpretation.

Berean Literal Bible
and the Living One. And I was dead, and behold I am living to the ages of the ages, and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.

Typical of a hell mindset to torture torture torture when all it means is death. So here is one for you - when hell is thrown in to hell what happens?

 

[Duckybill]

Hellmongering again! Here is a more literal interpretation.

Then why does it differ from nearly every Christian Bible? Because you like it?

Berean Literal Bible

and the Living One. And I was dead, and behold I am living to the ages of the ages, and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.

Typical of a hell mindset to torture torture torture when all it means is death. So here is one for you - when hell is thrown in to hell what happens?

Death NEVER means "cease to exist" in the Bible.

Matthew 25:41 (NKJV)
41 Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
Revelation 20:10 (NKJV)
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

 

[Amanuensis]

Hellmongering again! Here is a more literal interpretation.

Berean Literal Bible
and the Living One. And I was dead, and behold I am living to the ages of the ages, and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.

Typical of a hell mindset to torture torture torture when all it means is death. So here is one for you - when hell is thrown in to hell what happens?

Doesn't that mean that the wicked dead who are in hell now will be bodily resurrected and the thrown into the lake of fire which will be why it says Hell will be thrown into the Lake of Fire? I believe that is the most common view.

 

[John146]

Hellmongering again! Here is a more literal interpretation.

Berean Literal Bible
and the Living One. And I was dead, and behold I am living to the ages of the ages, and I have the keys of Death and of Hades.

Typical of a hell mindset to torture torture torture when all it means is death. So here is one for you - when hell is thrown in to hell what happens?

Seems like hell cools off in your bible. If one rejects Christ all that's left for them is annihilation? Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die.

 

[Duckybill]

Seems like hell cools off in your bible. If one rejects Christ all that's left for them is annihilation? Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die.

Exactly! If there is no eternal Hell then the wicked will have eternal peace.

 

[Phoneman-777]

When you interpret what Jesus said to mean something totally different you are led by Satan.

The Eternal Torment crowd constantly does that.

Jesus said through Solomon, "the dead know not anything" but you guys seem to think the dead know more than both He and Solomon, right or wrong?

 

[Duckybill]

The Eternal Torment crowd constantly does that.

Jesus said through Solomon, "the dead know not anything" but you guys seem to think the dead know more than both He and Solomon, right or wrong?

Good luck on Judgment Day calling Jesus a liar!

Matthew 25:41 (NKJV)
41 Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
Revelation 20:10 (NKJV)
10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

 

[Amanuensis]

The Eternal Torment crowd constantly does that.

Jesus said through Solomon, "the dead know not anything" but you guys seem to think the dead know more than both He and Solomon, right or wrong?

Google it.

 

[John146]

The Eternal Torment crowd constantly does that.

Jesus said through Solomon, "the dead know not anything" but you guys seem to think the dead know more than both He and Solomon, right or wrong?

Just wondering, where do you believe the thief on the cross went when he died? Paradise? Where was paradise located upon his death? Wherever it was, Jesus met him there that same day.