Why Lazarus was named but not the rich man (Luke 16:19-31)

[greenonions]

I thought of reasons why Jesus might have named the poor man Lazarus but left the rich man anonymous.

First, after the poor man and the rich man died, they can no longer be called poor or rich. Therefore, it is helpful to give the poor man a name, since the description "poor" no longer applies. Similarly, the rich man is never called rich after he dies. Jesus was a really wise story teller.

Second, the lesson is primarily a warning for listeners who identify with the rich man, so leaving him without a name makes it easier for the listener to identify with him.

[Athanasius]

Lazarus knew Jesus, so Jesus knew Lazarus, but the rich man didn't know Jesus, so Jesus didn't know him. That's how I always took it, anyway. It's not that Jesus wasn't aware of the rich man or his name, but that in choosing a life separate from God, it's truly separate.

Or it's a parable, and the point is Lazarus. Or maybe what you said, but the logic doesn't seem consistent.

[greenonions]

Thank you, Athanasius. I see your point that God knows Lazarus but not the rich man.

Yes, I think it is a parable because it begins the same way as the Parable of the Rich Fool in Luke 16:1: There was a certain rich man..., and so the rich man is also the main character, and the story flows so that it is clear that the rich man is the one suffering in Hades (Luke 16:22-23), and so he does not need to be named later (is that why you think the logic is not consistent?).

[Athanasius]

Thank you, Athanasius. I see your point that God knows Lazarus but not the rich man.

Yes, I think it is a parable because it begins the same way as the Parable of the Rich Fool in Luke 16:1: There was a certain rich man..., and so the rich man is also the main character, and the story flows so that it is clear that the rich man is the one suffering in Hades (Luke 16:22-23), and so he does not need to be named later (is that why you think the logic is not consistent?).

I had meant the logic surrounding the naming of the poor man. The rich man wasn't rich either, as you note, but still isn't named. And in fact, the poor man was rich, while the rich man was poor in this greater eternal context.