Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.



Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline J&M  
#1 Posted : Saturday, December 1, 2007 7:09:25 AM(UTC)
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

There are things about the 'Rich man and Lazarus' parable (Luke 16) which did not ring true so I got out the Lexicons (bauer arndt & gingrich in this case)

Rich man = Plautos Lit 'of earthly possessions'

Beggar = ptochos lit 'dependant upon others for support'

One can see here why the KJV translators used Rich man and Beggar, but I suspect that they have missed the point. The rich man was self reliant and ended up in the nasty part of Hades. Lazarous relied, presumably, on YHWH and ended up in the good part (Abe's bosom).

Has anyone any idea what the symbolism of the dog's licking Lazarus' sores?
Offline kp  
#2 Posted : Saturday, December 1, 2007 10:58:22 AM(UTC)
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Quite a thought provoking question there, J&M. After mulling this over for a while, I'm thinking maybe we have as a subtle undercurrent in this story a prophecy of the final disposition of mortal man---a Jewish remnant of which (Lazarus) will be saved in the end, though others (the "rich man") will be lost. What led me here is the fact that dogs are often a scriptural metaphor for gentiles. Dogs are unclean animals (in the dietary/ritualistic sense) that nevertheless were often useful in society (herding sheep, keeping predators at bay, warning of danger, acting as scavengers). Like donkeys or camels, these animals, though unclean, had their beneficial side. Just because they were "unclean," they were not necessarily evil in every way. And gentiles, though not Yahweh's chosen people, clearly have a role to play in the Last Days protection and sustenance of Israel.

So (if this line of reasoning has any merit) the "dogs licking Lazarus' sores" are indicative of gentiles (though unclean) ministering however they can to sons of Israel who clearly are in need, as they certainly will be during the latter half of the Tribulation---in other words, the ekklesia of repentant Laodicea. These gentiles couldn't do what the rich man (the ruling elite) was in a position to do (and didn't), but they did what they could. And Lazarus (representing the remnant who would be restored), for his part, accepted their well-intentioned comfort with gratefulness (though he doubtless would have preferred to have no problems that needed their attention). Is it just me, or do you hear the faint echoes of the "sheep and goats" scenario of Matthew 25 here? During the Tribulation, the goats (like the rich man) studiously avoided Lazarus and did not lift a finger to help him. But the sheep (the "dogs" in the other story---I guess that makes them sheepdogs :-) though they didn't have much to offer, did what they could to "minister" to this son of Israel. In fact, the "dogs/sheep/gentiles" will in the end be empowered to do much more for the remnant of Lazarus: “Thus says Yahweh: ‘Behold, I will lift My hand in an oath to the nations [that is, the gentiles], and set up My standard for the peoples. They shall bring your sons in their arms, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders. Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers; they shall bow down to you with their faces to the earth, and lick up the dust of your feet. Then you will know that I am Yahweh, for they shall not be ashamed who wait for Me.’” (Isaiah 49:22-23)

Offline Robskiwarrior  
#3 Posted : Saturday, December 1, 2007 1:19:57 PM(UTC)
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Location: England

interesting indeed :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline J&M  
#4 Posted : Saturday, December 1, 2007 10:18:06 PM(UTC)
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

Yes - I would go allong with that, I am also drawn to the correllation with the woman at Tyre (Mark 7), and the crumbs from the 'Jewish' table. I suspect that there is a social nuance here of the 'despised and rejected' type where, as KP points out, the rich man considers the dogs as unclean, but to Lazarus they are a welcome comfort.

Open, possibly infectious, sores would render Lazarous a social outcast (no antibiotics then!) and would probably come under the rabbinic label as 'leprosy'.

I am wondering whether the 'Rich Man' is Islam, where Lazarus (lit. 'without help'-) is Israel (sitting outside the very gate of Islam), vis. the reference to Dogs (almost a phobia in Islam) and of course the common recognition of Abraham, and the availability of Moses and the Prophets. Lazarus is regarded as a Dhimi - "send Lazarus to dip the tip his finger....", and the final condemnation "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead".

Christianity has Moses (even if they do regard Torah as superceeded) and they have the One who rose from the dead - there is only one group left!

Perhaps we need to move this thread to the Islam in the scriptures section...
Offline Heretic Steve  
#5 Posted : Monday, December 10, 2007 10:57:32 AM(UTC)
Heretic Steve
Joined: 9/26/2007(UTC)
Posts: 258
Location: ohio

The dogs may also have been used to convey the advanced stages of his illness, as in to feeble to shoo them away since dogs have a propensity for licking wounds, (their own wounds as well as the wounds of others).
If not us, who? If not now, when?
Offline Mike_Browell  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:36:11 PM(UTC)
Joined: 1/19/2008(UTC)
Posts: 51
Location: British Columbia, Canada


The true account of El`azar and the rich man was no parable
And it is overused by Christians against JW's, SDA's, and "Sacred name" groups, and they don't even realize that 'Avraham was also in Sh'ówl when they use it!

'El`âzâ´ r and the Rich man
And there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and buwts [`Ivríyth: white linen], celebrating daily in splendor.
And there was a certain beggar named 'El`âzâ´r, who lay strewed before his doorway, being full of ulcers,
And he was desiring to be filled from the crumbs that fell from the table of the rich man, instead, even the dogs, coming, licked clean his ulcers.
And it came to pass, the beggar died, and he was carried off by the envoys into the lap of 'Avrâhâ´m (in Sh'ówl) [Compare Yownâ´h 2: 2]. And the rich one died also, and was buried.
Then having raised up his eyes within Sh'ówl, coming to be in the bottom, he sees 'Avrâhâ´m afar off, and 'El`âzâ´r within his lap.

Be cool, acknowledge Him!

And he, calling out, said:

“Father 'Avrâhâ´m, be compassionate to me, and send 'El`âzâ´r, in order that he might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in intense pain within this blaze.”

But 'Avrâhâ´m said:

“My son, recollect that you received in full your good things during your lifetime, and 'El`âzâ´r similarly the bad things; but now look, he is consoled, but you are in intense pain.
And on top of all these things, a great chasm has been set fast between us and you, such that those who wish to cross from here towards you are unable, nor those from there can cross towards us.”

And he said to him:

“Then I beg you, my father, that you might send him unto the house of my father,
For I have five brothers, so that he might earnestly testify to them in order that they may not also come unto this place at the bottom!”

'Avrâhâ´m says to him:
“They have the scrolls of Moshéh and the Predicators: let them heed them.”
But he said:
“No, father 'Avrâhâ´m, rather, if one from the dead might traverse towards them, they will repent! ”
And he said to him:
“If they do not heed Moshéh and the Predicators, they will not be persuaded even if One might rise from the dead. ””
[Luwqá' 16:19-31]

This passage on 'El`azar and the rich man is never said to be merely a parable. Moreover, in no parable does He give specific names for people, as He does in this historical account. Furthermore, there is no allegorical parallel which this account might apply to.

Most JW's, SDA's, and "sacred name" groups work hard to deny all these scriptures. Christians also work very hard to deny these scriptures and promote their rapture to heaven illusion, because they do not want to face their judgment. No one should deny scripture, everyone should accept it!

Some try to allege it isn't even part of the original scripture. Even if it weren't, other scriptures make this clear. However, it is found in the Aramaic texts. Others then say that when the rich man "lifted up his eyes" it refers to him resurrecting. The first resurrection hasn't happened yet, if such were the case, his five brothers must be extremely old by now, since they hadn't died!

Yâhuwshúa` is the One who rose from the dead who the hardened yet do not believe in.

This describes Sh'ówl as being a place with more than one area, yet within sight of each other. It does not mention that 'Avraham also is in Sh'ówl, but that is where Ya`aqov said he was going [Genesis 37:35], and it is certainly not the same area as the rich man. Therefore they were in the Paradise part of Sh'ówl.

Quote from Sh'ówl ("Sheol", "Seol") - Hell or the Grave, or Paradise?
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.