Praying for Discipline, Standing on Grace [Praying for Prayer; Pt. II]
Previously, we covered: The Conception of a Disciple, The Miracle of Birth, and Changing the Diapers. Now the conclusion-
_______________
Razing Cain
Mortification of the flesh which we war against is the constant goal in the process of sanctification. We must always be seeking to raze, or burn our sin to dust in the hopes that Christ will be revealed in us. As I sought to pray and to seek God in a new way, this was my chief goal. With the Liturgy of prayer before me, I had a powerful tool against the devices of the evil one.
With this in mind, I bowed before the throne of the Sovereign LORD and, with the aid of my Advocate, I spoke boldly. I began with an Invocation, asking the Lord to meet with me. I believed that He would meet with me, yet I could not assume anything; I didn’t want to.
(more…)
Praying for Discipline, Standing on Grace [Praying for Prayer; Pt. I]
In a two-part series, Austin Rickett’s explores the depths of prayer: it’s difficulty, discipline, and delight.
_______________
The Conception of a Discipline
When I first decided to attempt a spiritual discipline, I thought that I would do something with worship. I was going to try to see God wherever I could. Maybe I would notice His handiwork in the sunset of the day. Perhaps His provision in my life would be evident in the cheeseburger I was eating at the time. Possibly God was allowing me to relax with the advent of an overcast and drizzly day, which often instills a somber mood within me.
As I set out to begin this experiment, I was joyfully hindered. It seemed as though the Lord was saying, “Find something new, you already practice this discipline quite often.” And so, I decided to take God’s advice because I hear that He’s omniscient, therefore He probably knows what He’s talking about. Without much hesitation I moved on to something new.
(more…)
A Moment
[A Gilead-inspired short prose piece]
Today you awoke, and it was finally Autumn. Actually, it’s not that today is the first day of the Fall, but it’s the first day that you realized it. There you were at the Railway Station, surveying the huddled masses, nervously tapping each of your pockets. You were assuring yourself that all was in its right place. Then, the whistle. The train is coming.
The breeze picks up as the train nears, fronted by a Zephyr-like standard bearer. The gust begins to tug at your skirt, but your legs aren’t cold. The wooden platform rumbles, feeling like the deck of a ship at high seas as it moves with the coming cavalcade.
The Engineer is visible. There is the steam. The Engineer is invisible. The whistle, the whistle, three times the whistle blows. Smack!
Your book fell. You recover it from the linoleum floor. And what is that screaming noise? You look up. It is the birth pangs of tea, steaming and salient on your stove. You throw the blanket off of your legs, and onto the arm rest of your chair.
(more…)
Parables, Allegory, and Luke 16 [the Application]
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
_______________
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.
Parables, Allegory, and Luke 16 [the Theory]
[ADMIN NOTE: this is the first half of a post by Austin Ricketts. This first half gives the theory, and the next will give the application of these ideas to a specific text: Luke 16. The next half should come in the next couple of days.]
“And behold, two men were talking with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem…And a voice came out saying,…‘this is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him!’”[1]
Every thesis entails the usage of technical terminology. Oftentimes it is this terminology that bars the common reader from accessing the particular message of the work that lies in front of her. A thesis regarding the peculiar locution of any given parable does not stray from this general rule. There is historical baggage for certain terminology surrounding the interpretation of Christ’s parables. A survey of this history will reveal any attempt to properly deal with the interpretation of the parables of Jesus Christ lacking if it does not spill some ink concerning the meaning of allegory. Once obtaining the linguistic boundaries of this term, movement may begin towards interpretation.
Allegory has landed on hard times. Adolf Jülicher totally dismissed the idea of parables being allegorical remarking that “the parables in general do not admit of this method at all, and that the attempts of the evangelists themselves to apply it rest on a misunderstanding.”[2] Joachim Jeremias chimes that allegory is a thick layer of dust, which conceals the original meaning.[3] C. H. Dodd seems to eschew allegory because of its matrix-like appearance as a cryptogram, which needs de-coding.[4]
All of this may sound harsh, but it is certainly understandable once placed in its particular historical setting. The parables had been suffering from various interpretations, which squeezed them through an allegorical sieve. These interpreters desired to obtain every precious stone possible as they sifted through the parables. The problem, however, was that in all of the flurry of activity these interpreters mistook fool’s gold for the real thing.
Jülicher, and, subsequently New Testament scholarship, reacted against this complicated and often contradictory mess. Thus, in his reaction, Jülicher whittled the parables down to generalizations with moral or religious principles being the cognitive transaction.[5] Jülicher believed that every parable had only a single point of comparison. This was a great first step in alleviating the burden thrown onto our interpretive backs by the excessive allegorizing of prior interpreters. The question then becomes, “Is Jülicher’s method the correct one, or is it more a polemic overreaction—has the pendulum swung too far?”[6]
Jeremias certainly thought that Jülicher erred, even fatally, in his tendency toward generalization.[7] In his rejection of Jülicher’s generality, Jeremias was simply following Dodd, while, of course, taking cues from his training in the culture of Palestine. Jeremias and Dodd are not the only ones who have rejected Jülicher’s “moralizing” as most scholars have since done so.[8] Jeremias went looking for meaning in the culture and history of Palestine, while Dodd saw crisis in the life and times of Jesus.[9]
Jeremias made an even more profound step away from Jülicher’s complete decimation of allegory. The distinction between parable, metaphor, simile, allegory, etc. is “a fruitless labour in the end” due to the fact that the original Hebrew and Aramaic words for parable embraced all of these categories.[10] It is certainly not at all clear how Jülicher can surgically remove allegory from the rest of these literary categories when Jesus irrefutably “used the language and thought forms of Aramaic, a Semitic language very similar to Hebrew.”[11] It is akin to removing someone’s heart with not a single intention of replacing it.
This raises another key issue, which conveys the polemicization inherent in Jülicher’s approach. There is a tendency to think that it was the Greek mind of the early church, which drove the heavy allegorizing of parable interpretation.[12] This may be true insofar as some church fathers are concerned, however, to eschew the allegorical interpretations of the Parable of the Sower and the Wheat and the Tares as an invention of the early church is absurd. Christian Bugge argued that Old Testament and rabbinic literature rather than Aristotle provided the background for interpreting Jesus’ use of the parables “So, it is arbitrary to restrict Jesus’ use of parables to the patterns of Greek rhetoric.”[13] Similarly, Paul Fiebig compiled into two books a large number of rabbinic parables, highlighting their allegorical nature, and in opposition to Jülicher, demonstrated that a mixture of parable and allegory was both common and well-liked in ancient Judaism. He even goes so far as to demonstrate that there were “standard metaphors” which were employed so frequently by the Rabbis that Jesus’ audiences almost certainly would have interpreted them in fairly conventional ways.[14] Many of the early church fathers certainly over-allegorized, but Jülicher, even in the eyes of his follower’s was overzealous with his axe. He went for the root of the tree when he should have stayed after the dead branches.
Now, if allegory is admissible, how do we determine what may be interpreted as allegory and what may not? It seems all that Jülicher really wanted to do was to eliminate the imposition of alien ideas onto the text, for example making the innkeeper in the parable of the Good Samaritan an allegory for the apostle Paul, when Paul was almost certainly not in the mind of Christ as he was telling this story. At the same time, considering the standard metaphors of the rabbinic parables, it is too hasty to extract allegory itself as alien.[15] Balance is desirable.
French Catholic Maxime Hermaniuk distinguishes between parable and allegory. From both Jewish and Greco-Roman perspectives parables were seen as extended comparisons or similes, while allegories were extended metaphors (where the comparisons are left implicit). But he stressed that the difference in meaning (though not in impact) between simile and metaphor is negligible once the points of comparison are recognized.[16] In other words, whether simile or metaphor, there is something, which stands for/in the place of something else. Extended metaphor, also know as allegory, is just less obvious than simile. With the proper spectacles nearly all haziness disappears. Hermaniuk’s essential conjoining of parable and allegory is reminiscent of Jeremias’ conception of Semitic thought on the issue wherein one word is used for both. It seems the remaining piece of the puzzle lies in finding a point of comparison, the proper spectacles, in order to safely navigate through the Scylla and Charybdis of over-allegorizing or flattening the parables.
In the shadow of the Old Testament the light of the New Testament parables will become brighter in somewhat of a chiaroscuro fashion, wherein the light is emphasized by the shadowy, yet all too necessary, figures found under the Old Covenant. Realizing the Old Testament to be Christ’s cognitive foundation is essential to understanding the parables. Christ amazed the rabbis with both his understanding and his answers and he increased in wisdom and in favor with God.[17] It was even said of him that he is greater than Solomon.[18] Proverbs makes clear that wisdom is the path of the righteous, and the only way to gain favor with God is to follow God’s law perfectly, a law, which is found in the Torah. Christ, in turn, understood himself to be perfectly in line with the thoughts of Moses as he says, “If you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings how will you believe my words?”[19] So, the imagery of the Old Testament (that of the Law, the Prophets and even the Psalms) was certainly prevalent in Christ’s mind.[20] The Old Testament is our touchstone, our point of comparison from where we may determine correct or incorrect allegory. This constant aids in ridding ourselves of methodological arbitrariness.
__________________________
- [1] Luke 9:30-31, 35.
- [2]C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1961), p. 2.
- [3]Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus. (London: SCM Press LTD, 1963), p. 13.
- [4]Dodd, Kingdom, p. 1.
- [5]Dodd, Kingdom, pp. 12-13.
- [6]Dodd, Kingdom, pp. 7, 13. Dodd firmly believes, like Jülicher, that parables present us with a single point of comparison, however, he holds that Jülicher has moved too far. According to him, Jülicher’s interpretations have a flattening effect. While holding to the single point comparison of Jülicher, Dodd adds the dynamic element of “crisis” to his interpretive understanding, which, in his mind, gives more depth in meaning.
- [7]Jeremias, Parables, p. 19.
- [8]Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables. (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1990), p. 33.
- [9]Dodd, Kingdom, p.13; Jeremias, Parables, p. 22.
- [10]Jeremias, Parables, p. 20.
- [11]Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 36.
- [12]Dodd, Kingdom, p. 4-5.
- [13]Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 36.
- [14]Ibid., p. 37. “Among the most important for interpreting Jesus’ parables are: a father, king, judge, or shepherd for God; a vineyard, vine or sheep for God’s people; an enemy for the devil; a harvest or grape-gathering for the final judgment; and a wedding, feast or festal clothing for the Messianic banquet in the age to come.”
- [15]Blomberg, Interpreting, p. 47. “Indeed, part of the debate is simply a semantic one involving the meaning of allegory. Many scholars who reject the term nevertheless recognize stock symbols in almost all of the parables, which ‘stand for’ something other than themselves and would have been well known to Jesus’ original audiences. Yet the other ‘side’ replies that this is precisely what allegory usually involves. Moreover, almost all commentators who actually expound a selection of the parables wind up with some allegorical interpretations, as the anti-Jülicher tradition defines them, regardless of what they may say about their method.”
- [16] Ibid., p. 38.
- [17] Luke 2:47, 52.
- [18] Luke 11:31.
- [19] John 5:46-47.
- [20] Luke 24:44.
