Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lazarus, the Greek for of Eleazar...Who was Eleazar?...And why name the poor man but not the Rich Man?...
Since this is just in Luke, only he knows..and he's not telling. I can only say that the whole story is a parable about the Jews not accepting the claims of Jesus' son of godship which was (supposedly) foretold in Moses and the prophets.
The only clues at to why Lazarus is that this story appears in Luke just about (when all the parables and Q document stuff is cleared away) where the raising of Lazarus would be..if Luke has it, which he doesn't. And also it associates it with Mary and Martha (sisters of Lazarus) in the huese in Bethany, which (all the intervening padding removed) suddenly pops up here (Luke 10.38). That together with Luke's missing anointing at Bethany which seems to appear in a rewritten version in Galilee (7.36). In Mark (14.3) and matthew (26.6) this anointing is in the house of Simon the Leper, and 'lazarus' (as Lazar) is linked with leprosy.
I don't want to join the dots into a false picture, but i rather suspect that all these things are connected and fo some reason it bothered the gospel writers so much that they disguised the events in the house of Lazarus in Bethany, and perhaps Luke's singular parable of the rich man and Lazarus (his own work, i have no doubt) is loosely based on Lazarus, brother of Mary, and just possibly related to the appearance of Lazarus out of a cave, brought back from the dead. And maybe even with a message about the true messiahship of Jesus. But that's best kept for a novel.
The Hebrew Kingdoms were split...Israel in the north and Judah in the south..
Exactly. The Elder sons were the tribes of Judah and the younger ones were the tribes of Israel, the Northern kingdom. Always regarded with some censure by the writers of the OL. Judean scribes, you can bet your last shekel. And so they had to be Younger (lesser) brothers.
Since this is just in Luke, only he knows..and he's not telling. I can only say that the whole story is a parable about the Jews not accepting the claims of Jesus' son of godship which was (supposedly) foretold in Moses and the prophets.
The only clues at to why Lazarus is that this story appears in Luke just about (when all the parables and Q document stuff is cleared away) where the raising of Lazarus would be..if Luke has it, which he doesn't. And also it associates it with Mary and Martha (sisters of Lazarus) in the huese in Bethany, which (all the intervening padding removed) suddenly pops up here (Luke 10.38). That together with Luke's missing anointing at Bethany which seems to appear in a rewritten version in Galilee (7.36). In Mark (14.3) and matthew (26.6) this anointing is in the house of Simon the Leper, and 'lazarus' (as Lazar) is linked with leprosy.
I don't want to join the dots into a false picture, but i rather suspect that all these things are connected and fo some reason it bothered the gospel writers so much that they disguised the events in the house of Lazarus in Bethany, and perhaps Luke's singular parable of the rich man and Lazarus (his own work, i have no doubt) is loosely based on Lazarus, brother of Mary, and just possibly related to the appearance of Lazarus out of a cave, brought back from the dead. And maybe even with a message about the true messiahship of Jesus. But that's best kept for a novel.
Eleazar was Arbraham's faithful Gentile servant...That would inherit from Abraham since he had no male heir as of yet...The reason the Rich Man has no name in thr Parable is that it is an allusion to the Judah...There is nothing sinful about dressing in PURPLE and FINE LINEN (an allusion to The Jews?...Which were to be a PRIESTLY and HOLY nation?)...Neither is it a sin to fare sumptuosly everyday (allusion to the spiritual blessings of the Jews as opposed to the Gentiles?)...Being in the Bosom of Abraham (an idiom implying a place of honor?)...Being tormented by fires (allusion to grief of no longer being in the Bosom of Abraham?)...And why was Lazarus taken away to the Bosom of Abraham by Messengers (not Angels...Messengers have...Messages?) and the Rich Man merely buried? (A metaphor for being cut off or dead to someone?..Just as a Jew that converts to anothet religion has commited Jewish suicide and therefore dead to his people, as if he no longet existed among the living, a walking dead man)...
Exactly. The Elder sons were the tribes of Judah and the younger ones were the tribes of Israel, the Northern kingdom. Always regarded with some censure by the writers of the OL. Judean scribes, you can bet your last shekel. And so they had to be Younger (lesser) brothers.
Samarians claim decent from the Tribe of Israel (the lost sheep?)...
Samarians claim decent from the Tribe of Israel (the lost sheep?)...
They do, but Judeans of the time considered them not quite kosher as Jews (and therefore suspect) because they had a different centre of worship at Mt. Gerizim, not the Temple at Jerusalem. That was enough to make Greek Christians sympathetic to them, partially because they had the idea that Jews hated them and partially because they used the Septuagint for their text (they read Greek, not hebrew) and I gather that was the Bible used in Samaria, too.
I am afraid that i am not persuaded by your reading of the parable of Lazarus. Luke's parable is a familiar one. A rich man dies and goes to hades. A poor one dies and is carried by angels of 'messengers' (from heaven. That they are heavenly messengers is clear from their appearance at the resurrection.
Luke's message is craftily clear - simply being rich will cosign you to Hades and being poor will get you the 'bosom of Abraham' (whatever that is, it clearly beats Hades, where the rich man is tormented by thirst.
Luke is beating the drum yet again for handing over all your money to the church and your sheer poverty will guarantee you at least a better chance of heaven.
While he may have derived some of the symbolism from the tribes of Judah and Israel, I see that as incidental to the story which makes perfect sense in the familiar context of Luke being obsessed with money.
Samarians claim decent from the Tribe of Israel (the lost sheep?)...
No. It is evidence from the gospels that the lost sheep were not the Samaritans. In the apostolic mission, they were not to go to the gentiles nor the Samaritans (Matthew 10.6). This puzzled me for a while but a poster here some months ago gave me a clue. It was to validate Paul's mission to the gentiles. Jesus did not send his message to the gentiles, because that was going to be Paul's job.
They do, but Judeans of the time considered them not quite kosher as Jews (and therefore suspect) because they had a different centre of worship at Mt. Gerizim, not the Temple at Jerusalem. That was enough to make Greek Christians sympathetic to them, partially because they had the idea that Jews hated them and partially because they used the Septuagint for their text (they read Greek, not hebrew) and I gather that was the Bible used in Samaria, too.
I am afraid that i am not persuaded by your reading of the parable of Lazarus. Luke's parable is a familiar one. A rich man dies and goes to hades. A poor one dies and is carried by angels of 'messengers' (from heaven. That they are heavenly messengers is clear from their appearance at the resurrection.
Luke's message is craftily clear - simply being rich will cosign you to Hades and being poor will get you the 'bosom of Abraham' (whatever that is, it clearly beats Hades, where the rich man is tormented by thirst.
Luke is beating the drum yet again for handing over all your money to the church and your sheer poverty will guarantee you at least a better chance of heaven.
While he may have derived some of the symbolism from the tribes of Judah and Israel, I see that as incidental to the story which makes perfect sense in the familiar context of Luke being obsessed with money.
I think you're missing the parabolic implications and may not be thinking objectively....I think the Parable was an implication of the soon to be switch in the status between the Jews and the Gentiles..
Last edited by Richard1965; 06-15-2014 at 09:59 AM..
No. It is evidence from the gospels that the lost sheep were not the Samaritans. In the apostolic mission, they were not to go to the gentiles nor the Samaritans (Matthew 10.6). This puzzled me for a while but a poster here some months ago gave me a clue. It was to validate Paul's mission to the gentiles. Jesus did not send his message to the gentiles, because that was going to be Paul's job.
Samarian...Not Samaritan...If it was to be Paul's job then why did Peter claim that honor?...
Uh...The Rich Man had five BROTHERS not five SONS...It is a reference to Judah...
You're right. My bad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
