Part 2 of an excellent series on interpreting parables.  In this post: the principles laid out in Part 1 applied to the Rich Man & Lazarus

by Austin Ricketts

_______________

You can read part 1 here.

Now, turning attention to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus directly, the above insights will prove helpful. It was briefly mentioned that Jülicher’s enterprise, beyond destroying allegory, was intent upon finding the single point of comparison in each parable. Dodd and Jeremias distanced themselves in degree from the flattening effect of Jülicher’s generalizations, but like most scholars following Jülicher could not distanciate themselves from the single point of comparison. The following interpretation will find more than a single point of comparison.

Some argue that the Rich Man and Lazarus may not technically be a parable. This is advanced because of the lack of certain features that generally accompany parables. “It is neither called a parable (e.g. 8:4; 12:16, 41; 13:6; 15:3; 18:9) nor introduced with a comparative that suggests a parable (e.g. 13:18, 20).”[21] This is not convincing because the parable begins with ‘a certain man was’ which is common to a number of Jesus’ parables and furthermore certain parables are not explicitly called such within the text such as Mark 12:1 or Luke 15:1.[22]

Another issue that this parable faces is the notion that historically it was two different parts. The two divisions are between 16:19-26, which deals with the treatment of others, and 16:27-31, which tackles the issue of resurrection.[23] It seems the main reason for this division is the passages reference to resurrection, the supposed Lucan appeal to Moses and the prophets, as well as the idea of repentance. However, Bock makes clear that 16:30:

parallels the appeal to father Abraham in 16:24, and its mention of ‘going from the dead’ does not equal resurrection but refers to a visit from the dead. The appeal to resurrection in Luke 16:31 serves as literary heightening of the appeal in the parable and makes sense in the tone of the account. The remark also has an enigmatic edge, since it asserts that the resurrection is not convincing. In light of the resurrection’s central role in preaching, would the early church create such a statement? The entire remark makes more sense as a defense of Moses and the prophets, thus fitting a precross setting.[24]

The passage is better taken as a whole.[25]

The last bit of historical background concerns two stories, which bear a resemblance to the canonical parable. There was an ancient Egyptian story about a wealthy man clothed in royal linen, and a poor man on a mat, and similarly a Jewish story of a rich tax collector named Bar Ma’jan and a poor teacher of the law.[26] The interesting theme enveloped in both of these stories is that the states of the characters are reversed by the end, which is correlative with the Rich Man and Lazarus.[27] It seems Jesus used the basics of these stories while adding his perspective of repentance and the Old Testament covenants (i.e., the Abrahamic and the Mosaic) into the mix.

The three main characters in the drama are the Rich Man (also know by the Latin Dives), Lazarus (most likely coming from the Hebrew Eliezer meaning ‘God helps’) and Abraham the covenant head and father of the nation of Israel. Along with these players we have the backdrop of the Old Testament under the nomenclature of Moses and the prophets. The setting also plays an integral part as it shifts dramatically from the earthly to the other-worldly.

In the first act we are introduced to Dives “clothed in purple and fine linen.”[28] Lazarus was certainly seen by Dives as he sat in the prominent spot of the gate. This clues the audience to realize that Dives “had no…sympathetic heart for the needs and sufferings of others, but had fallen completely into selfish pleasure-seeking,” which is “evident from the fact that he had left the sick beggar uncared-for as he lay at his gate in his misery.”[29] Dives certainly enjoyed his wealth, “which he celebrated with outward splendour and pomp and exuberant joviality. He strove after no higher purpose in life than to use his riches in selfishness and ostentation for worldly pleasure.”[30]

Lazarus is just the opposite. Lazarus was not only poor and unable to provide for himself, but he was suffering from sores, which, on top of all of this, he was licked by dogs which were designated by a Greek word, ????, meaning wild, undomesticated dogs. This would have made Lazarus unclean.[31] It appears “in vain did the starving Lazarus long to still the cravings of hunger even if it could only be done with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table.”[32] Lazarus was utterly deprived in the earthly realm.

The next act brings a dramatic change of scenery. Lazarus has died and it is no wonder remembering his awful condition on earth, yet Dives has taken a dive of his own. Not even money can save you in the end. This new place is the afterlife. Lazarus “was by the angels carried to Abraham’s bosom…to recline in Abraham’s bosom, as the apostle John was going to recline in the bosom of Jesus, indicates special favor…in connection with Luke 14:7.”[33] This plot twist, alluded to in the ancient Egyptian and Jewish folk stories, does not stop with Lazarus who was transformed from poor to truly rich. It goes on to show the state of selfish Dives. Receiving his good things within his earthly life, Dives has all stripped away as he is placed in anguish because of his lack to care for Lazarus.[34] Dives is in Hades.[35]

This apparent judgment upon Dives moves one to ask what the basis for condemnation was. This question is answered in verse 29 with verse 31 reaffirming the answer. Being a child of Abraham, Dives was in covenant with God. This covenant was written in Moses and reiterated in the prophets. Dives knew full well what his duty to the poor was in light of this covenant and was thus rightly condemned for disobeying it.

This post-Death—pre-Resurrection intermediate state is final in a penultimate manner. With respect to the already and the not-yet, it may be said that Dives is certainly damned for eternity, though not yet fully damned in the ultimate place of torment known as Hell or Gehenna. On the lighter side, Lazarus is in a state of bliss but he is not yet in the consummated kingdom. There is a finality in this intermediate state represented by the chasm which verse 26 shows is not able to be crossed. “The image is strong and suggests that how we respond in this life is decisive for where we reside in the next.”[36]

This is the consequence, which is revealed to motivate one of the main points in the parable.

All the main aspects of the parable set forth something for the audience to learn. This method, which explicitly denies Jülichers single point of comparison, adds a dynamic to interpretation, which at the same time is not an imposition but naturally flows from the main aspects as they represent something other than themselves in accordance with the Old Testament and the Lucan context itself. Dives stands as a warning to money lovers and the self-righteous, who were combated earlier in the chapter.[37] Lazarus is he whom God helps who “without uttering a single word of hate or bitterness against the rich man or against God, accepted the painful trials that had come upon him. He had not allowed suffering to drive him away from God, but had remained a true child of Abraham—a God-fearing sufferer such as Job had been.”[38]

The last two main aspects flow from the Old Testament and seamlessly through the context of Luke. Abraham and Moses are associated with two different yet cooperative covenant structures. Abraham is associated with a covenant of grace, which holds the promise of life for those who believe.[39] Moses is associated with a covenant of works, which, due to our sinful hearts brings death upon our heads.[40] This is just the case with Dives. He had Moses, who pointed out the way of the righteous, but Moses does not give the power to live according to God’s will. Not even a resurrection from the dead will change the hard of heart.[41] It is only by trusting the one to whom Moses pointed, the “Christ of God” promised by God through Abraham that anyone may be saved.[42]

“The parable is not primarily a moral tale about riches and poverty – though, in this chapter, it should be heard in that way as well…if it’s a parable, that means once again that we should take it as picture-language about something that was going on in Jesus’ own work…As Luke makes clear throughout, his kingdom – mission is the fulfillment [sic] of the whole story of Israel. Anyone who understands the law and the prophets must therefore see that Jesus is bringing them to completion.”[43] After all, Luke is an evangelist. Soli Deo Gloria.

____________________

• [21]Darrel L. Bock, Luke Volume 2: 9:51-24:53, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), p. 1362.
• [22]Bock, Luke, p. 1362; Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 205.
• [23]Bock, Luke, p. 1361. At least part of this dichotomous bent comes from those, like Bultmann, who deny “unity…wrongly assuming that a parable can only have one point.”
• [24]Bock, Luke, p. 1361-62.
• [25]Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 204. “Some suggest…that Luke has simply embellished a popular story…More plausible is the suggestion that the second ‘half’ of the parable is Jesus’ own distinctive addition to a tale which circulated in different forms. Nevertheless, structurally, the break after verse 23 (when the dialog begins) seems more pronounced than the shift in focus between verses 26-27. Tying verses 24 and 27 together, the verbal repetition of an address (“father”), of an imprecation (“have mercy on me,” “I beg you”) and of a request for Abraham to send Lazarus supports this assessment. So it is perhaps doubtful whether any two-stage development of the parable should be posited. More important still, the theme of ‘too late’ winds through all portions of the passage, weaving it into a tightly-knit unity.”
• [26]Bock, Luke, p. 1362; Blomberg, Interpreting, pp. 203-204.
• [27]Bock, Luke, p. 1362.
• [28]Luke 16:19
• [29]Norval Geldenhuys, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1951), p. 425.
• [30]Ibid., p. 425.
• [31]William Hendriksen, Luke, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), p. 783; Bock, Luke, p. 1367.
• [32]Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke, p. 425.
• [33]Hendriksen, Luke, p. 784.
• [34]Luke 16:25.
• [35]Geerhardus Vos, “Hades.” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Vol. II: 1314-1315. 1915. online http://www.biblicaltheology.org/hades.pdf, 2007), p. 2-3. The language flowing through verses 22 and 23 seems to distinguish Hades and Abraham’s bosom/side as two different places. Geerhardus Vos is not so sure as he defends, “the distinction is not between ‘the bosom of Abraham’ and another place, as both included Hades, but between ‘the bosom of Abraham’ and Hades as antithetical and exclusive.” However, he goes on to make sure that, “The parable is certainly not intended to give us topographical information about the realm of the dead, although it presupposes that there is a distinct place of abode for the righteous and the wicked respectively.” Also, according to a word study that he does Vos maintains that Hades is equivalent to the Old Testament sheol. On this he then states, “The element of truth in theory of the provisional character of Hades lies in this, that the New Testament never employs it in connection with the final state of punishment, as subsequent to the last judgment. For this Gehenna…and other terms are used.”
• [36]Bock, Luke, p. 1373.
• [37]Luke 16:13-15.
• [38]Geldenhuys, Gospel of Luke, p. 426.
• [39]Genesis 17:7, Luke 1:70-73.
• [40]Deuteronomy 31:29. “For I know that after my death you will surely act corruptly and turn aside from the way that I have commanded you. And in the days to come evil will befall you, because you will do what is evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking him to anger through the work of your hands.”
• [41]Luke 16:31.
• [42]Luke 24:44; 9:20; 1:72-73.
• [43]N.T. Wright, Luke for Everyone, (London: SPCK, 2001), pp. 200-201.

Random Posts:

• Parables, Allegory, and Luke 16 [the Theory]
• Reform and Revive has launched!
• True Spirituality