Unlike some of Jesus' other "judgment" parables, this one seems to deal more with the intermediate state of the dead rather than the Last Judgment. That may be why it is the only “hell” parable in Luke not paralleled in Matthew.
The Characters Are Named, Unlike Other Parables
Only in this parable are the characters (Lazarus and Abraham) given names and only here does the action leave the earthly sphere. “The story merely begins and ends; there is no application or explanation and no transition from the previous or following sayings.” (Snodgrass) The rich man is usually referred to as Dives. However, this is simply Latin for “rich” and not an actual name. During the Middle Ages, many different names were assigned to the rich man.
Explanations for Lazarus' name:
A. There has been speculation ever since the time of Origen that there was some sort of relationship with the Lazarus who was raised from the dead by Jesus. (Anchor Bible) Lazarus also came back from the dead, but the Pharisees (the present audience) did not believe, even then. Actually, they plotted to kill him (see John 12:10-11). Some harmonies of the Gospels have Jesus telling this parable right before he raises Lazarus from the dead, but it is very hard to come up with a precise chronology when comparing John's Gospel with the Synoptic account.Luke may have attached Lazarus' name to Jesus' original parable because of the similarities. Fitzmyer) By contrast, Snodgrass sees only superficial similarities.
Lazarus is a common name and may be comparable to the use of “Jack” in various nursery rhymes and fairy tales (Jack and the Beanstalk, Jack the Giant Killer).
The name has the appropriate meaning of “God saves,” or “He whom God helps.” Alternatively, Young's Concordance says it means “without help.”
Lazarus is a nickname for Eliezar, the name of Abraham's servant in Genesis 15:1-2. He was designated as Abraham's heir in case Abraham had no children. Eliezar was felt to be a Gentile, which may have implications in interpreting this parable. Also note that Lazarus ends up in Abraham's bosom.
B. It shows a reversal of the worldly order in which only the rich and famous are known by name. (Trench) The point is that the poor man is given a name for us to remember him by whereas the rich man remains a “no name.” A recently discovered Coptic text is the earliest manuscript we have of this story. In it, the rich man is called Neues. The meaning of the name is unknown, but some scholars have speculated that it means “no one.” (Fitzmyer)
Main Point(s)
There are two parts to the story, each with their main point: (1) there will be a reversal of fortune in the afterlife. However, the story is not necessarily a condemnation of wealth per se since Abraham himself was quite wealthy and Lazarus is not given any particular moral characteristics at all; (2) God has already given mankind abundant signs pointing to the truth. This could certainly include the Scriptures and the following resuscitation of Jesus' friend Lazarus and Christ's resurrection. (as in most commentaries).
Albert Schweitzer was asked why he left his professorship and went to Africa. He replied, “We are Dives...Out there in the colonies, however, sits wretched Lazarus.”
“What the parable attacks is a particular kind of wealth, wealth that does not see poverty and suffering. It attacks the idea that possessions are for one's own use and that they are owned without responsibility to God and other people...We dare not have a gospel with an evangelistic emphasis and no concern for the poor.” Most commentators feel this parable is a denunciation of the rich who misuse their resources and ignore the poor. Snodgrass says that it is hard to imagine any other approach doing justice to the story. He adds,“It reminds us that special signs are not required to know the will of God, nor will they convince those who do not wish to obey.”
Details of the Afterlife
“The story has no bearing on the question of the resurrection of the body. It is manifest too that the details are not to be taken literally.” (Marshall) “This caution is both necessary and true and must be emphasized...” (Snodgrass)
“It is no purpose of the parable to give information about the unseen world.” (Geldenhuys)
“The picture of judgment and rewards immediately at death is contrary to the usual New Testament understanding. Probably it should be understood simply as a part of the setting of the story.” (Elllis)
Elements of symbolism present in the story (Abraham's side, great chasm, this fire) show that “it would be rash to attempt a description of the after-life from the details given here...The aim of the parable is not to acquaint us with details of the life to come, but to confront us with our duty in this life.” (Bruce)
“It is a moot point whether the parable is intended to give literal information about the next world, and, if so, whether it refers to an intermediate state before the final judgment or to a lasting state.” (New Bible Commentary)
Though the details may be figurative, it definitely teaches that the state of an individual on death is irrevocably fixed (i.e., no purgatory or second chance). (Kistemaker)
One example of reading too much into the details is Billy Graham (Angels) using this parable to teach that angels escort a person's soul to heaven after death in order to protect it from the demons who live in the atmosphere.
We certainly can't use this parable to establish theology. For example, the comment about the impossibility of the dead coming back is contradicted elsewhere in the Bible – see Samuel, Lazarus, Jesus, Elijah, Moses, and those that Jesus brought back from death.
“The problem of understanding the biblical material on life after death is much more problematic than most Christians are aware. We know far less, and Scripture is far less clear, than most think.” (Snodgrass) And this is especially true of the intermediate state of the dead, which is clearly the setting of this parable. The two obvious options (excluding dispensational ones) are that (a) we are separated at death into two camps and sent to either Hades or paradise or (b) all the dead go to Hades and rest there until the Final Judgment when some will go to Hell (gehenna, pit of fire, etc.) and other will go to Heaven.
The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (p. 208) states, “The view that the OT does not distinguish the place of the unrighteous dead from that of the righteous is under challenge, with P. Johnson arguing that Sheol is for the ungodly and that the righteous are apprehensive of it only when under extreme trial or preoccupied by their sins. At other times they eagerly anticipate seeing God's face.”
Verse 19: An ancient variant text begins, “And he uttered another parable.” Both disciples and Pharisees were in the audience.
Verses 20-21: There are some comparisons with the Prodigal Son story: the desire to be filled, contact with impure animals, and banquets. The food falling from the table is bread used to wipe the hands during the meal.
“A gate that could have been an opening to help Lazarus...mirrors the chasm between the two men after death.” (Snodgrass)
Verse 21 An article in Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2019, demonstrates that in the ancient Near East and the Roman World, dogs were not looked on as mere scavengers. In fact, this parable shows a rich man keeping them as pets. In addition, the Roman world, going back to at least to inscriptions from the 4th cent. BC, felt that dog saliva had healing powers. The cult of Asclepius kept dogs in their temple for that very purpose. Therefore, this parable isn't picturing Lazarus as so pathetic that he can't shoo away mongrels who are abusing him. The dogs have taken pity on him and are trying to comfort him. One commentator sees irony in the dogs wetting Lazarus with their tongues and the rich man later pleading for water to wet his tongue.
Verse 23 “Bosom of Abraham” means that Lazarus was next to him at the table in the place of honor. The heavenly banquet of Luke 13:28-30 is pictured according to Snodgrass.
Verse 24 The nature of the pain is figurative. (Trench) Some commentators suggest that the rich man is asking for the “water of life.”
Verses 24-31 “The rich man and Abraham both make three remarks; by coincidence each speaks a total of 69 words.” (Snodgrass)
In support of the idea that we retain our own selfish behavior in Hell and really prefer to be there are the observations that (1) the rich man has no name since the only identity he had died with him, (2) he never asks to be released from Hell and be in God's presence, and (3) he continues to treat Lazarus as his personal slave. (Timothy Keller, The Reason for God) However, it should be pointed out that the parable doesn't state that Lazarus was his slave on earth. The fact that he was at his gate and saw him eating is no proof that he was part of the rich man's staff, as this was common practice.
As a very junior supervisor at work, I once attended the annual meeting of detergent executives at the Boca Raton Country Club in Florida. Many of these industry leaders had parked their yachts in the docks right outside. It was obvious from my clothes and young age that I was socially and financially inferior to most of the people there. Therefore when it became time to begin the meeting, someone had no hesitation in handing me a pile of agendas and ordering me to hand them out.
Verses 24-25 The irony is that a “son of Abraham” is in the place of torment. This is an echo of Luke 3:8-9.
Verse 30 indicates that the rich man recognizes the problem with the way he had been living his life. And in addition, the rich man indirectly accuses God for not providing him with enough information while he was still alive. This is quite similar to the remark of the atheist Bertrand Russell that I quoted elsewhere when he said that if he met God after he died, he would ask Him why He hadn't provided enough proof of His existence.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments