by jimwalton » Fri Apr 01, 2016 11:49 pm
I would be glad to further explain and clarify what I said. I never said Judah didn’t have brothers. Nor did I say that Eliezer (Lazarus) was not a steward in Abraham’s house. The Bible states both of those, and of course they are true. What I said is that’s not what the story of Luke 16 is about.
What I said was that there is no evidence to support your idea that Luke 16 is referring back to Judah and Eliezer, and the division between Jews and Gentiles. That’s where your exegesis goes astray. Your interpretation is not verifiable and it has no link to authority, and you can’t legitimately claim that Jesus was teaching that. You can’t claim that it “fits” when you are the one, not the Bible, that has made those identifications. It only fits because you have fabricated a fit that the Bible doesn’t endorse or justify. Just because the Hebrew Eliezer is the same as the Greek Lazarus doesn’t mean the two stories are intertwined in meaning. Joshua and Jesus are the same name, but that doesn’t mean their stories relate to each other or that we can get the meaning of one story from the other. The Bible has plenty to say about the relationship between Jews, Gentiles, and the Gospel, but that is certainly not the point of this story.
I had mentioned to you when we began this conversation about Luke 16 that there was a lot in the story. When I originally wrote to you about it, I covered the major meanings of the text, but since you are desiring more, I am glad to supply more. I just didn’t want to make my first post too long. I will try not to repeat the things I said before, so because I don’t mention them again doesn’t mean they aren’t still part of the meaning of the story.
First of all, we don’t even know if the story is a parable, an actual event, or a story Jesus made up (that is not a parable) to teach particular truths. So we are not necessarily looking for the meaning of each element of the story as if it were a parable, because we just don’t know. But we can still decipher the teachings of the story (as I did in my first post). But I will continue.
In the Gospel of Luke, as I have already mentioned, “rich” and “poor” mean two separate things. First of all, he really is talking about rich and poor, and how greed and lack of caring will be judged. But “rich” in Luke symbolizes godlessness, and “poor” symbolizes godliness, so there is a symbolic undercurrent to what Jesus is talking about. On with the analysis.
There is a rich man, who is the image of the greedy and uncaring, but he is also an image of godlessness. The purple and fine linen are details to explain just how rich the man is, how able he is to give to others, even without sacrifice, but also representing the depth of ungodliness. His station is extreme.
Lazarus is at the other extreme, suffering in abject poverty, even covered with sores to represent the depth of his suffering. In contrast to the man who has everything, Lazarus has nothing. He defines the lowest, the neediest, the least of all.
Before we go on, a bit of cultural information: In their society, they often regarded the rich as blessed of God, and the suffering as having done something sinful (or his parents had, and he was suffering for it). This is a view that Jesus proves false, but it was a view of their culture. One of the points of the story is that Jesus is going to prove this wrong. The world doesn’t operate according to the Retribution Principle (the good get blessed in this life, and the sinful get judged in this life). It’s not the way life works, and it’s not the way God works.
In time they both die. The poor man, who symbolizes those who seek God, is taken to a place of comfort. We would call it heaven. The rich man, who symbolizes those who do not seek God, is taken to a place of torment. We would call it hell. Ironically, Jewish folklore often speaks of the righteous being carried away by angels; Jesus debunks that notion also. Notice they are both there immediately; there is no intermediate state. We are being told a story of accountability for how we live our lives and the decisions we make.
What is Abraham’s side (or Abraham’s bosom)? In John 1.18, the Logos is in the bosom of the Father. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, according to the Scriptures, are in heaven and welcome those who come (Matthew 8.11). The bosom is usually a place of favor (John 13.23). For the Jew, to be in Abraham’s bosom is to be in Paradise. We would understand this all to mean heaven. Lazarus went to heaven (appropriate for the godly). See also Luke 23.43. Being with Abraham in Paradise meant eternal fellowship with God.
The rich man was in Hades and in torment. He symbolizes the ungodly, the proud, the uncaring (cf. Matt. 25.45-46). His wealth doesn't necessarily mean he was blessed by God, and it certainly doesn’t mean he was righteous. Don’t be fooled by visual impressions and society’s evaluations. He is separated from fellowship with God. That’s what the “gulf” is.
Aha, the tables are turned. Lazarus had to look up from the ground to the rich man’s table. Now the rich man looks up (v. 23). Who is “Father Abraham”? It’s possible, if it’s really a story, that it’s actually Abraham, the patriarch to which the man owes his blood descent. In that sense the Jews think of him as the gate keeping, just as nowadays we talk about St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. If it’s a parable, Father Abraham symbolizes the one who has authority over eternal destiny.
The rich man hopes for mercy because he is a descendant of Abraham, but we discover that judgment is not based on ethnicity or religious claims, but who is in fellowship with God. He is in agony and wishes to drink of the water. Salvation is often depicted as eating and drinking in the kingdom of God. In contrast, thirst is often symbolic or separation from God and rejection from the kingdom (remember Jesus said “I thirst” on the cross, which was both literal and symbolic). In the Old Testament, thirst and death by thirst are often presented as divine punishment (Isa. 5.13; 50.2; 65.13; Hosea 2.3; Psalm 106.33; Song of Solomon 11.14). He wants Lazarus to wait on him, to refresh him, and to show some mercy. He wants the water on his tongue. In Isaiah 6.5, the lips are a symbol of morality. Does this mean he wants his guilt taken away? It’s hard to tell, but it’s possible. He is in torment and wants relief. Being separated from God is the worst agony.
Notice v. 25: “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted and you are in agony.’ “ Here the reversal of role and status shows the story to be symbolic. His wealth was a symbol of godlessness, and Lazarus’s poverty was a symbol of those who seek God. The point is neither that wealthy people will all be punished, or that none will be punished, or that all poor people are being judged by God, or that all poor people go to heaven. Rather, the point is clearly that of spiritual position (the symbolic interpretation of the story) and the consequent eternity.
The “great gulf” is not a geographical one whose width and depth could be measured, but that there is no way for people who are in heaven to help those in hell to come over. There is no intercession and no mediation. Death pronounces the finality of decisions made in life. There are no second chances. It is appointed to us to die once, and then comes the judgment (Heb. 9.27). What you do in this life echoes in eternity, no turning back, no turning back.
Who are the five brothers? They are the ungodly still on the earth, that’s all. The rich man begs that they be given evidence so they make a godly decision. The answer comes back that they have been given plenty of evidence, and they have the Scriptures, and have made their choices. The man protests, “It’s not enough! If someone comes back from the dead, that will convince them!” The reply comes, “If they don’t believe all that they have been given, they won’t believe anything more or bigger.” Miracles and visions in themselves don’t melt stony hearts. People need to repent, and if they don’t, an existential, tangible experience of God won’t make a difference. Tangibility is not the convincing factor. Tangibility is ultimately as subjective as anything else. Our eyes, ears, and senses can be fooled. Ultimately our guts and brains cooperate to determine what we choose to believe, and our sense only play a part in the drama.
That’s what the story means.
I would be glad to further explain and clarify what I said. I never said Judah didn’t have brothers. Nor did I say that Eliezer (Lazarus) was not a steward in Abraham’s house. The Bible states both of those, and of course they are true. What I said is that’s not what the story of Luke 16 is about.
What I said was that there is no evidence to support your idea that Luke 16 is referring back to Judah and Eliezer, and the division between Jews and Gentiles. That’s where your exegesis goes astray. Your interpretation is not verifiable and it has no link to authority, and you can’t legitimately claim that Jesus was teaching that. You can’t claim that it “fits” when you are the one, not the Bible, that has made those identifications. It only fits because you have fabricated a fit that the Bible doesn’t endorse or justify. Just because the Hebrew Eliezer is the same as the Greek Lazarus doesn’t mean the two stories are intertwined in meaning. Joshua and Jesus are the same name, but that doesn’t mean their stories relate to each other or that we can get the meaning of one story from the other. The Bible has plenty to say about the relationship between Jews, Gentiles, and the Gospel, but that is certainly not the point of this story.
I had mentioned to you when we began this conversation about Luke 16 that there was a lot in the story. When I originally wrote to you about it, I covered the major meanings of the text, but since you are desiring more, I am glad to supply more. I just didn’t want to make my first post too long. I will try not to repeat the things I said before, so because I don’t mention them again doesn’t mean they aren’t still part of the meaning of the story.
First of all, we don’t even know if the story is a parable, an actual event, or a story Jesus made up (that is not a parable) to teach particular truths. So we are not necessarily looking for the meaning of each element of the story as if it were a parable, because we just don’t know. But we can still decipher the teachings of the story (as I did in my first post). But I will continue.
In the Gospel of Luke, as I have already mentioned, “rich” and “poor” mean two separate things. First of all, he really is talking about rich and poor, and how greed and lack of caring will be judged. But “rich” in Luke symbolizes godlessness, and “poor” symbolizes godliness, so there is a symbolic undercurrent to what Jesus is talking about. On with the analysis.
There is a rich man, who is the image of the greedy and uncaring, but he is also an image of godlessness. The purple and fine linen are details to explain just how rich the man is, how able he is to give to others, even without sacrifice, but also representing the depth of ungodliness. His station is extreme.
Lazarus is at the other extreme, suffering in abject poverty, even covered with sores to represent the depth of his suffering. In contrast to the man who has everything, Lazarus has nothing. He defines the lowest, the neediest, the least of all.
Before we go on, a bit of cultural information: In their society, they often regarded the rich as blessed of God, and the suffering as having done something sinful (or his parents had, and he was suffering for it). This is a view that Jesus proves false, but it was a view of their culture. One of the points of the story is that Jesus is going to prove this wrong. The world doesn’t operate according to the Retribution Principle (the good get blessed in this life, and the sinful get judged in this life). It’s not the way life works, and it’s not the way God works.
In time they both die. The poor man, who symbolizes those who seek God, is taken to a place of comfort. We would call it heaven. The rich man, who symbolizes those who do not seek God, is taken to a place of torment. We would call it hell. Ironically, Jewish folklore often speaks of the righteous being carried away by angels; Jesus debunks that notion also. Notice they are both there immediately; there is no intermediate state. We are being told a story of accountability for how we live our lives and the decisions we make.
What is Abraham’s side (or Abraham’s bosom)? In John 1.18, the Logos is in the bosom of the Father. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, according to the Scriptures, are in heaven and welcome those who come (Matthew 8.11). The bosom is usually a place of favor (John 13.23). For the Jew, to be in Abraham’s bosom is to be in Paradise. We would understand this all to mean heaven. Lazarus went to heaven (appropriate for the godly). See also Luke 23.43. Being with Abraham in Paradise meant eternal fellowship with God.
The rich man was in Hades and in torment. He symbolizes the ungodly, the proud, the uncaring (cf. Matt. 25.45-46). His wealth doesn't necessarily mean he was blessed by God, and it certainly doesn’t mean he was righteous. Don’t be fooled by visual impressions and society’s evaluations. He is separated from fellowship with God. That’s what the “gulf” is.
Aha, the tables are turned. Lazarus had to look up from the ground to the rich man’s table. Now the rich man looks up (v. 23). Who is “Father Abraham”? It’s possible, if it’s really a story, that it’s actually Abraham, the patriarch to which the man owes his blood descent. In that sense the Jews think of him as the gate keeping, just as nowadays we talk about St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. If it’s a parable, Father Abraham symbolizes the one who has authority over eternal destiny.
The rich man hopes for mercy because he is a descendant of Abraham, but we discover that judgment is not based on ethnicity or religious claims, but who is in fellowship with God. He is in agony and wishes to drink of the water. Salvation is often depicted as eating and drinking in the kingdom of God. In contrast, thirst is often symbolic or separation from God and rejection from the kingdom (remember Jesus said “I thirst” on the cross, which was both literal and symbolic). In the Old Testament, thirst and death by thirst are often presented as divine punishment (Isa. 5.13; 50.2; 65.13; Hosea 2.3; Psalm 106.33; Song of Solomon 11.14). He wants Lazarus to wait on him, to refresh him, and to show some mercy. He wants the water on his tongue. In Isaiah 6.5, the lips are a symbol of morality. Does this mean he wants his guilt taken away? It’s hard to tell, but it’s possible. He is in torment and wants relief. Being separated from God is the worst agony.
Notice v. 25: “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted and you are in agony.’ “ Here the reversal of role and status shows the story to be symbolic. His wealth was a symbol of godlessness, and Lazarus’s poverty was a symbol of those who seek God. The point is neither that wealthy people will all be punished, or that none will be punished, or that all poor people are being judged by God, or that all poor people go to heaven. Rather, the point is clearly that of spiritual position (the symbolic interpretation of the story) and the consequent eternity.
The “great gulf” is not a geographical one whose width and depth could be measured, but that there is no way for people who are in heaven to help those in hell to come over. There is no intercession and no mediation. Death pronounces the finality of decisions made in life. There are no second chances. It is appointed to us to die once, and then comes the judgment (Heb. 9.27). What you do in this life echoes in eternity, no turning back, no turning back.
Who are the five brothers? They are the ungodly still on the earth, that’s all. The rich man begs that they be given evidence so they make a godly decision. The answer comes back that they have been given plenty of evidence, and they have the Scriptures, and have made their choices. The man protests, “It’s not enough! If someone comes back from the dead, that will convince them!” The reply comes, “If they don’t believe all that they have been given, they won’t believe anything more or bigger.” Miracles and visions in themselves don’t melt stony hearts. People need to repent, and if they don’t, an existential, tangible experience of God won’t make a difference. Tangibility is not the convincing factor. Tangibility is ultimately as subjective as anything else. Our eyes, ears, and senses can be fooled. Ultimately our guts and brains cooperate to determine what we choose to believe, and our sense only play a part in the drama.
That’s what the story means.