Introduction
When you think of Luke 16:19-31, you immediately recall this epic story between the two destinies of Lazarus and a certain rich man. When you read this account, we assume that it is a literal historical event to explain the definitive results of our lives in the land of the living. But what the account also does is arise a lot of questions, like why did the rich man get condemned to a fiery torment and the poor man a rest with Abraham just because one received good things and the other bad? How is there life after death, when life itself is found in the breath (spirit) of Life from God? Or, also how is eternal life achieved for the wicked if "the gift of eternal life" hangs solely on faith with Jesus as our savior?
The purpose of this paper is to explore the writing style of this account to determine if it is literal or not. Then also get into what Jesus might have meant by giving this story to the disciples amidst the Scribes and Pharisees. I hope to be able to prove a different perspective to this account by the time I am done. Through this paper, there will be a few statements in passing that I will not have time to fully support here, but will leave a lot of unanswered assumptions. These assumptions will have to be addressed in another paper.
Literal or Parable?
This is the most hotly contested question regarding this account that I have ever heard about. Both scholars and bible readers alike fall on either side of the line. It seems all we can do is give as much evidence to one side, and hope it is sufficient to drive it home. One of the reasons this is so contested is because it is the "go to" verse for those that hold a Traditionlist view of the immortality of the soul. There is such strong resistance to interpreting this as a parable because it would collapse a pillar verse of their view. While it is not my purpose to attack the Traditionlist view at this time, it does bring out a concern that we would allow our traditional views to keep us from the truth of the Word. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing this very same thing (Mark 7:3-9) saying
"But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men..."
Josephus (a Jewish historian, c. 37-100 A.D.), in his work Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades notes that the concept of a soul being created immortal by God is "according to the doctrine of Plato" who in early 400 B.C. first got it from the Egyptians. Thus classifying it as a doctrine of man. So we must be sure to not allow ourselves to cloud or mold the bible through presuppositional mindsets, but rather allow the Word to mold us.
So which is it, parable or literal history? One argument for the literal interpretation is the use of an actual name; Lazarus. While I am not contending with the importance of the reference to this name, I do however contend the conclusion. If we recall back through previous chapters of Luke, we begin to see a pattern use of "and there was a certain man". Luke 15:11 "A certain man...", Luke 16: 1 "There was a certain rich man...", and Luke 16:19 "And now there was a certain rich man..." The Scofield Reference Notes avoids this and states
"Lk 16:19-31. are not said to be a parable. Rich men and beggars are common; there is no reason why Jesus may not have had in mind a particular case. In no parable is an individual named."
It is for this reason why I believe most readers use this argument, but while Luke may not have explicitly named it a parable, nor is there a name mentioned in the others, does not ultimately remove its parabolic references. I do in fact believe that Christ had a "particular case" and reason for mentioning Lazarus, but for different reasons then to elevate the parable to a documented account.
"If we speak of it sometimes as a Parable, it is not because we hold it to be one of Christ's Parables, specially so called, but because it partakes of the nature of parabolic teaching..." (E. W. Bullinger, D.D.).
When I speak of this as being a parable, I am not trying to rob the bible of its truth being portrayed with in this account. What I want to get readers to take into account is that Jesus is using this to illustrate the truth through imagery that the listeners would have heard before. We need to be cautious not to make doctrine from imagery, but also not to lose sight of the purpose because we think that it is just a story. Dr. Alfred Edersheim notes
"it will be necessary in the interpretation of this parable to keep in mind that its parabolic details must not be exploited, nor doctrines of any kind derived from them, either as to the character of the other world, the question of the duration of future punishments, or possible moral improvement of those in Gehinnom. All such things are foreign to the parable" (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Book IV, p. 277). "We must not look in this parabolic language for Christ's teaching about the 'after death'" (ibid, p. 279). "Doctrinal statements should not be drawn from parabolic illustrations" (ibid, p. 282).
"The very reason we do not feel compelled to interpret the parables historically is that they are presented in a somewhat stylized fashion -- the reader or hearer is immediately aware that they belong to a different genre (literary type)" (Walter Kaiser and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics: The Search for Meaning, p. 106).
Literally makes contradictions
Which brings us to the reason why we must not allow this to be interpreted as a literal account. While this topic has its fingers in the biblical anthropology debate, a literal rendering of this parable would fly in the face of one of the foundational understandings of Christianity; The Judgment. If we establish the account to be literal then we are rearranging the judgment process and dividing it into two time frames; which is wholly contrary to scripture.
Hebrews 9 establishes the exclusive need for Christ to die one time and become that final sacrifice for all sin. In verse 27, through this single sacrifice it established “Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment…” and look forward to our salvation. One might suggest that “see we get judged when we die”, but the scriptures clearly establishes when the Day of Judgment would occur.
“For we must all be revealed before the judgment seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”
(2 Cor. 5:10)
“For the Son of Man will come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will render to everyone according to his deeds.” (Matt. 16:27)
“For this we tell you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left to the coming of the Lord, will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with God's trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. So we will be with the Lord forever.” (1 Thess. 4:15-17).
"Most certainly, I tell you, the hour comes, and now is, when the dead will hear the Son of God's voice; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself. He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. Don't marvel at this, for the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs will hear his voice, and will come out; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:25-29)
Ultimately we must conclude from these clear passages that judgment is not passed until after the parousia of Christ and the subsequent resurrection. This not only goes for the punishment of the wicked, but the glorious reward of the saints. To take Luke 16:19-31 as a historical account is to proclaim that man survives even after death and is judged at that time. In other words he is immortal. Surely the scriptures teach us the Lord "alone possess immortality” (1 Tim. 6:16) and that it is the reward of the saints to be able to “put on” the immortal in body, which as I pointed out we receive after the resurrection. (1 Cor. 15:53)
Why would He use a man made lie to tell the Truth?
I have established that Luke 15-16 documents Christ using parables to teach certain Kingdom truths, but it leads us to ask why use a doctrine of men in a parable to teach a truth? Or more sharply, why use a lie to tell the truth?
This is not the only time Jesus uses this type of tactic to turn the tables on the teachers of the day.
"In the story, then, of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus has put them down with one of their own superstitions. ... He used their own ideas to condemn them. ... It is simply a case of taking what others believe, practice, or say, and using it to condemn them" (Sidney Hatch, Daring To Differ: Adventures in Conditional Immortality, p. 91). "Since the elements of the story are taken from the Pharisees' own traditions, they are judged out of their own mouths" (Dr. Edersheim: ibid, p. 92).
In Mark 12:18-27 a Sadducee had approached Jesus and told a story of a woman who had married seven times because she had become a widow that many times. The question became whose wife she would be at the resurrection. Verse 18 starts with an important clue, the Sadducees' didn't even believe in the resurrection. More to that point Acts 23:8
"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess all of these."
From the start, the Sadducee seems to be asking Jesus a rhetorical question almost as if he was baiting him.
"...Isn't this because you are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God? For when they will rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven."
This is where Jesus picks up on it and seemingly replies with an equally sarcastic retort. He replies saying 'you don't even know scripture if you're asking me a question like that, believing what you do. Come back to me when you actually have a question'. Jesus was not endorsing or denying any view, but using a tradition against them.
Paul employs a similar tactic in 1 Cor. 15:29 when he was speaking about baptism for the dead. By mentioning it in his teachings yet not condemning it, Paul was surely not endorsing the baptism for the dead. But using it to drive a different truth home.
A final example would be in John 9:1-3 where Jesus and the disciples came across a blind man and asked
"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?"
Hopefully you can see the implications of this question. We know that generational curses can pass infirmities to offspring, but if you read the question. They were asking if this man sinned prior to his own birth in order for him to be born blind. Thanks to the Hellenistic influence on Jewish thought, the notion of the eternality of the soul had even reached the disciples before they followed Jesus. But Jesus does not even address the issue but just replies by stating neither the blind man nor his parents caused it. By not condemning a doctrine or using it, as Jesus shows, it does not mean He endorsed it.
"(1) In Kiddushin (Treatise on Betrothal), fol. 72, there is quoted from Juchasin, fol. 75, 2, a long story about what Levi said of Rabbi
(2) There was a story of a woman who had seen six of her sons slain (we have it also in II Macc. vii). She heard the command given to kill the youngest (two-and-a-half years old),
and running into the embraces of her little son, kissed him and said, “Go thou, my son, to Abraham my father, and tell him 'Thus saith thy mother. Do not thou boast, saying, I built an altar, and offered my son Isaac. For thy mother hath built seven altars, and offered seven sons in one day”, etc. (Midrash Echah, fol. 68.1)
(3) Another example may be given out of a host of others (Midrash on Ruth, fol. 44, 2; and Midrash on Coheleth (Ecclesiastes) fol. 86, 4). “There are wicked men, that are
coupled together in this world. But one of them repents before death, the other doth not, so one is found standing in the assembly of the just, the other in the assembly of the wicked. The one seeth the other and saith, 'Woe! And Alas! There is accepting of persons in this thing. He and I robbed together, committed murder together; and now he stands in the congregation of the just, and I, in the congregation of the wicked.' They answered him: 'O thou foolish among mortals that are in the world! Thou weft abominable and cast forth for three days after thy death, and they did not lay thee in the grave; the
worm was under thee, and the worm covered thee; which, when this companion of thine came to understand, he became a penitent. It was in thy power also to have repented, but thou dist not'. He saith to them, 'Let me go now, and become a penitent'. But they say, 'O thou foolishest of men, dost thou not know, that this world in which thou are, is like a Sabbath, and the world out of which thou comest is like the evening of the Sabbath? If thou does not provide something on the evening of the Sabbath, what
wilt thou eat on the Sabbath day? Dost thou not know that the world out of which thou camest is like the land; and the world, in which thou now art, is like the sea? If a man make no provision on land for what he should eat at sea, what will he have to eat?' He gnashed his teeth, and gnawed his own flesh”.
(4) We have examples also of the dead discoursing with one another; and also with those who are still alive (Beracoth, fol. 18, 2 – Treatise on Blessings). “R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, How doth it appear that the dead have any discourse among themselves? It appears from what is said (Deut. xxxiv. 4), And the Lord said unto him, This is the land, concerning which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying” What is the meaning of the word saying? The Holy Blessed God saith unto Moses, 'Go thou and say to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the oath which I sware unto you, I have
performed unto your children'.” Note that 'Go thou and say to Abraham', etc. Then follows a story of a certain pious man that went and lodged in a burying place, and heard two souls discoursing among themselves. “The one said unto the other, 'Come, my
companion, and let us wander about the world, and listen behind the veil, what kind of plagues are coming upon the world'. To which the other replied, 'O my companion, I cannot; for I am buried in a can mat; but do thou go and whatsoever thou hearest,
do thou come and tell me',” etc. The story goes on to tell of the wandering of the soul and what he heard, etc.
(5) There was a good man and a wicked man that died; as for the good man, “he had no funeral rites solemnized”; but the wicked man had. Afterward, there was one who say in his dream, the good man walking in gardens, and hard by pleasant springs; but the wicked man “with his tongue trickling drop by drop, at the bank of a river, endeavouring to touch the water, but he could not”. (Chagigah, fol. 77. Treatise on Exodus 23:17).
(6) As to “the great gulf”, we read (Midrash [or Commentary] on Coheleth [Ecclesiastes], 103. 2), “God hath set the one against the other (Ecc. vii. 14) that is Gehenna and
Bullinger goes on to say that these writings were widely used by some early century writers, and spread during the Dark Ages "to all the worst errors of Romanism" (starting approx. 400 A.D.). One of these the apocryphal books of prayers to the dead called "song of the three children" in which the "the souls and spirits of the righteous" are called on to praise the Lord.
While I believe Jesus uses this parable to make foolish their teachings, I will show that it also has a subtext of prophetic truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment