In a section discussing the significance and denotation of repentance (metanoia) in the Gospel accounts and ancient Jewish literature, N.T. Wright notes that the account found in Luke 16:19-31, "Is not, as often supposed, a description of the afterlife, warning people to be sure of their ultimate destination."
Wright goes on to show why the account of Lazarus and the rich man must be a parable. Richard Bauckham agrees, writing that the story "has only the status of parable" and it draws attention "away from the apocalyptic revelation of the afterlife back to the inexcusable injustice of the coexistence of rich and poor." For the sake of fairness, Wright cites those who take issue with Bauckham's perspective.
While I think the illustration's stark symbols are polyvalent, I believe that both Wright and Bauckham are spot on when they argue that Luke is not describing the afterlife or a fiery hell filled with torments for wicked persons. That is not his/Jesus' focal point in the telling of this parable.
See N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, pages 255-256.
Compare https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/is-rich-man-and-lazarus-a-parable/
3 comments:
John ch.5:45NIV"“But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set."
John ch.7:47NIV"“You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. 48“Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? 49No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”"
Matthew ch.23:1-3NIV"1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."
Revelation ch.3:17NIV"You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked. "
A Good rule of thumb for theological interpretation is to start with scriptures that are explicity about a subject or doctrine, and let those be determinative, and then take into account those who may not be about the subject or doctrine but who may say things that have implications for a subject or doctrine.
In this case the passage is explicitly about social justice, and if the parable can be pressed for any other doctrinal content one would have to do a historical exegesis (which I think would show that this is a clearly a fanciful fairy tale like parable which ought not to be pressed for any content about the nature of the after life), and then compare it with explicit statements about whatever doctrine one is talking about, if we are talking about eternal conscious post-mortem torment, we have passages that are precisely about the state of the dead and the result of wickedness which would rule out pressing the parable for content beyond what the parable is explicitly communicating (i.e. a message of social justice).
BTW, the recent book by Crossley and Myles "Jesus: A Life in Class Conflict" which I reviewed in the journal of early Christian history, has an interesting section on this parable.
Thanks Roman. I've seen your review though I have not read the book. Always appreciate your thoughts on these subjects. Another commentary I like that is a little different from others is by Joel Green: might need to review his take on this parable.
Some years ago, a man tried to push the "certain man" language as though that proved Jesu was not telling a parable. Peter Gurry shows that will not work since Jesus employed "certain man" language in other accounts when telling parables.
Post a Comment