davidbu@loowit.wr.tek.com (David E. Buxton) (03/19/91)
Luke is full of the Parables of Jesus and this is clearly a parable among
other parables.
A quick glance through the book of Luke will turn up at least 20 of Jesus
parables and most of these do not show up in the other Gospels. One key
feature of the book of Luke is the number of parables it contains. Chapter
16 starts with the "Parable of the Dishonest Steward" and when Jesus is done
the Pharisees sneer back at Jesus (vs 14). The chapter begins with a
parable on stewardship and is followed with another parable on stewardship -
"The Rich Man and Lazarus". My point is that this parable is found among
many parables, is in the context of stewardship and the parable has clear
interpretation in regards to stewardship. As it is with parables, once we
understand the basic message, it is best not to continue finding
applications that the parable was not meant to communicate.
The parable of the Ten Virgins had nothing to do with literal virgins. The
parable of the Lost Coin is really not about money. The parable of the Lost
Sheep is not for the farmers almanac. The parable about the "Pearl of Great
Price" does not teach us that heaven is like a pearl. So it is with the
parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus. It is not about hell.
Let us see what conclusions we come to if we allow a literal interpretation
of this parable: 1) If taken literally then the rich go to hell and the
poor go to heaven. 2) When buried we go to hell along with our fingers,
eyes, tongue etc. {But when graves are exhumed we do find physical remains}
3) Heaven is within sight of hell. Is hell that close to heaven? 4) Hell
is close enough to Heaven that those in Heaven can hear those in Hell. Does
that place heaven near the center of the earth? 4) Those enjoying heaven
must endure the pleadings of those in hell. 5) Abraham, and not Mary is our
real spokesman in heaven. 6) Abraham's bosom cannot possibly be literal.
7) Hell is cool enough that only a few drops of water are sufficient to
quench the thirst. 8) Those who die and go to heaven can come warn those
who have not died yet. 9) Someone in hell, perhaps persuaded by talking to
someone in heaven, can repent of his bad deeds but still find himself
eternally locked up in hell - the gulf between is too wide to cross. This
parable would then clearly do away with Purgatory, of which there is no
mention.
Some people insist that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is the only
parable in which a man is named. You insist that if there is a literal
name, then at least some of the parable must be taken literally. That of
course opens up a pandoras box of picking and choosing what to take
literally. My position is that this is a symbolic parable with a moral that
has nothing to do with a literal hell. As it is with parables, search out
the moral, find its application in your life and then don't go on to apply
it where it was never intended to be applied.
I went to the library to see if the Jewish Encyclopedia might offer some
contemporary insight. There was nothing on the Biblical Lazarus. I checked
the Catholic Encyclopedia and was pleasantly surprised.
"LAZARUS
"Name of two men in the NT. The Greek form of the name, <greek>, is
based on an abbreviated form of the Hebrew name elazar (God has
helped).
"Lazarus of Bethany. He . . . . . . . . . . .
"Lazarus the Poor Man. In one of His parables (Lk 16:19-31) Jesus gave
the name Lazarus to the man who lay sick and miserable at the rich
man's gate, longing in vain for "the crumbs that fell from the rich
man's table"; when both men died, Lazarus was borne by angels to
*Abraham's bosom, to dine at the messianic banquet table, but the rich
man went to torments in *Hades. This is the only NT parable in which a
character is given a name. Perhaps Jesus did so here to show that
Lazarus put his trust in God's help, as the name signifies. The rich
man is popularly called Dives, which is merely the Latin word for "rich
man." He is called Neus (Ninive?) in the early MS P, and Phinees in
the Sahidic (Coptic) version, Despite the use of a personal name in
this parable, the characters in it were obviously not historical. How-
ever, in the Middle Ages the poor man of the parable became St.
Lazarus, the patron of beggars and lepers (Known also as lazars)."
Notice the statement: "Despite the use of a personal name in this parable,
the characters in it were obviously not historical." In other words, the
name Lazarus is considered to be symbolic by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
Note also that they did not apply this parable to hell as I would have
expected.
Here is what I found in the Interpreters Bible which claims 146 editors and
consulting editors. To save you time I'll just glean a few highlights:
Two distinct themes - reversal of values in life to come and poor will
be rewarded and the rich punished.
"19-31. Parable of the Rich Man and the Beggar -- (See also . . . . .)
This story was the spark that touched off the revolution in the life of
Albert Schweitzer. He concluded that Africa was a beggar lying at
Europe's doorstep, so he founded the Lambarene Hospital. The parable
has that kind of power. . . . . . . .
"This parable is not theology. It is a vivid story, not a Baedeker's
guide to the next world. Such stories as this were current in Jesus'
day. They are found in rabbinical sources, and even in Egyptian papyri
(see Exeg.). The climate of the story is almost that of the play The
Green Pastures. But we cannot be casual with it, for its symbols are
the shadows of realities. It tells us that inequalities on earth are
redressed in heaven: lowliness (Lazarus means "God helps") is rewarded
hereafter, and self- indulgent pride is rebuked. We all see that self-
ishness makes hell on earth: why should we doubt that it brings hell
hereafter? The story tells us of a great gulf. If a man chooses a
cheap heaven here, he can hardly expect to have a real heaven beyond
death, for he has lost both taste and aptitude for a real heaven. If a
man lives without compassion, he manifestly digs a chasm between him-
self and his fellow men; and by the same token he separates himself
from God, for God is love. The story tells us that life here fashions
an eternal destiny."
Again we see an objective encyclopedia making it clear that this is a sym-
bolic parable.
And now for the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia:
"A man in a parable Jesus told (Lk. 16:19-31) to teach that people's
conduct on this side of the grave determines their situations after
death. This parable follows a story common in Egyptian and Jewish
thought, in which the wicked rich and the pious poor have their posi-
tions reversed in the afterlife. It is told from the point of view of
the rich man (often called Dives from the Latin for "rich man"), who
speaks with Abraham from his place of torment."
It should now be clear that the parable was dealing with monetary steward-
ship and stewardship of the form that Albert Schweitzer took to heart. But
I also propose 3'd form of stewardship - the stewardship of the Gospel:
Jesus knew the value of parables in teaching the people. He desired to
stimulate their deepest thought and contemplation, and He knew that if He
spoke too literally, certain of His hearers would quickly forget His words.
Perhaps He also knew that direct speech would be lost to history while a
Parable would make it into our Bible. Also, his parables often contained
stern rebuke. If He had spoken directly, his listeners would they have
silenced Him with violence. "Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of
the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not
see, and hearing they might not understand" (Luke 8:10). Those who search
for truth will find it and those searching for excuses will find them also.
Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees, a class of men who were notorious all
through the Gospels for their refusal to deal honestly with Jesus and the
truths He taught. Paul was not so tactful when dealing with them. When
ever Paul mentioned that he was commissioned to take the Gospel to the Gen-
tiles the Jews became instantly violent and Paul's Roman guards had to
escort him back into the barracks to preserve his life (Acts 22:21-22). The
message of this Parable, to me, deals with the same problem of the Jews
being so thoroughly prejudiced against the Gentiles especially the Samari-
tans.
From this perspective who symbolized the rich man? The Jews had been
blessed above measure by a knowledge of God and His plan of salvation for
all mankind. They had received "the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the prom-
ises" (Romans 9:4). They founded their security on the fact theat they were
children of Abraham. Only a Jew would pray to "Father Abraham," as we find
the rich man doing in the story. The Jewish nation was clearly represented
by the Rich Man. And the Jews treated the Gentiles, especially the Samari-
tans, as the 'dogs' who would have to be satisfied with the crumbs falling
from the bountiful table of those rich in the workings of salvation. In
matters spiritual, the Jews viewed the Gentiles as being exceedingly poor
and unworthy, and the Lazarus of our story fits their prejudice precisely.
If the parable had been more obvious Jesus would have been mobbed on the
spot. Elsewhere Jesus says that the poor in spirit will inherit the earth.
"Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom
of God before you" (Matt 21:31) The Jews had always been urged to spread
the good news to their neighbors and refused to do so. Those who have not
heard the message stand a better chance of heaven than those who should be
delivering the message and do not.
At the close of the chapter we hear Jesus say "If they hear not Moses and
the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead"
(Luke 16:31) Let us also not forget what happened a little while later. A
real Lazarus was raised from the dead and the Pharisees determined to kill
Lazarus and were even more determined to kill Jesus. If Lazarus could rise
from the dead, then Jesus could rise from the dead. This was a gospel story
the Pharisees would rather send back to the grave.
It is not my objective to blast the Jews. No! I think this parable is for
all of us to get busy and carry the gospel to our neighbors who do not know
of Jesus. We should also consider that the tables are now turned on us and
we should be taking the gospel to the Jews who have been so long abused and
tormented by 'Christianity'.
Dave (David E. Buxton)
From the Silicon RainForest of the Northwestph600fev@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Robert O'Barr) (03/20/91)
I think one rule of thumb when we read the parables is that we should not overinterpret nor underinterpret them. I understand the following from the parable: The rich man had been blessed tremendously by the Lord. He did not use his riches to succor the poor rather "when the least of his brethren was an hungered, he gave him no meat" Christ in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is teaching the consequences of such treatment of the poor. The consequence of the rich man's hatred of the poor is that at death, his body is burried yet he (his eternal spirit) goes to hades. What does the greek word hades mean? Ha.des ha-d-(.)e-z\ n [Gk Haide-s] 2: SHEOL She.ol \she--'o-l, 'she--.\ n [Heb Shebreve>'o-l] 1: an underworld where according to ancient Hebrew belief the dead have a shadowy existence In hades, the rich man suffers. Lazarus is not subject to the torments that the rich man is, rather he is with Abraham (the righteous) and there is a gulf fixed between those who did good and those who did evil. Christ also teaches us that if men don't listen to his servents the prophets, then it is unlikely that they will listen to one rising from the dead (or an angel, or a miracle, etc.) If it is true that the existance of hades is a pagan belief, then we are really accusing Christ of teaching false doctrine. Most people I know who have related their personal beliefs of what Christ is trying to teach here ( the percentage goes way up if I delete those from just two denominations ) understand that yes Christ is teaching that at death, we go to hades where if we have been wicked, we will be punished for our sins. My own opinion is that Christ, even when teaching with parables never taught in a way that even the least in tune with the spirit would be lead to believe he was advocating false and pagan doctrine. This posting I am following up to and several similar articles I have read that are of even greater length make me ask the following question. Why do people always dedicate so much effort to try to show that this parable doesn't teach what it appears to teach? Is Christ really such a poor teacher that we need several pages of well thought out arguement to conclude that what Christ appears to be teaching really can't be so? To me, there is no teacher so powerfull and clear as Jesus. Robert