Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Interesting "story" today. I phrase it like that because one of the big debates about this passage is whether it should be classified as a parable or as a true story. This is the only parable in which the characters are actually named, leading some to believe that it is a true story rather than a parable.
"An important feature often discussed about this passage is whether it truly is a parable. Some avoid identifying it as a parable for fear that it removes the precision about the teaching on the afterlife, since a parable is more pictorial and representative than a real story. However, the fundamental theological affirmations about the afterlife—for example, that once one receives his or her judgment, one cannot alter that position for eternity—are true regardless of the genre classification.
The story does differ from other parables in not being about a repeatable everyday situation, but rather is a specific story. In this sense it is like the parable of the good Samaritan. Still, the account does not recount a historical interchange between a specific rich man and a specific Lazarus, but pictures it. The details of the discussion in the afterlife, including the rich man’s ability to engage Abraham in discussion, are apocalyptic-like features in the account that show its rhetorical, parabolic, and symbolic character. Yet realities about accountability before God are portrayed." [1]
I know that's kind of a dense quote, but basically what he's saying is that there are some good reasons to think that this is a parable and other good reasons to think that it's a true story. Bock definitely leans toward "parable". I myself lean toward "true story". The fact that this is the only "parable" that the characters have names is a pretty big factor, as well as the fact that the interactions and way the story is told is very different from most of the parables. That's definitely not an opinion I would die over, but that's how I see it. Admittedly the conversation with Abraham is really unusual and brings up a lot of questions, but we just don't have enough data to really understand what's going on in that interaction clearly. Above all I think it would be VERY unwise to build our entire theology of the afterlife on this passage because a lot of things are unclear.
This story is really a testament to how hard the human heart can become. Though this story is mixed in with a lot of other content, I think it's pretty reasonable to think that it's directed at the Pharisees that don't believe in Jesus. There are many today who are just like them: their hearts have become so hard that no matter what is revealed to them they will reject it. They ask for signs from God of His existence and reject every sign they receive. It breaks my heart.
"Even if one rises from the dead, they will still not be convinced! Those reading the parable in the Gospel, knowing the story of Jesus, are aware just how true this remark is. Jesus’ resurrection convinced only some that God was working through him. A hard heart produces eyes that do not see the activity of God and ears that do not heed his warnings, much less the revelation he graciously reveals. The parable closes with a dark and tragic note about how humanity often misses the opportunities God makes available to them." [2]
The Rich Man and Lazarus
Interesting "story" today. I phrase it like that because one of the big debates about this passage is whether it should be classified as a parable or as a true story. This is the only parable in which the characters are actually named, leading some to believe that it is a true story rather than a parable.
"An important feature often discussed about this passage is whether it truly is a parable. Some avoid identifying it as a parable for fear that it removes the precision about the teaching on the afterlife, since a parable is more pictorial and representative than a real story. However, the fundamental theological affirmations about the afterlife—for example, that once one receives his or her judgment, one cannot alter that position for eternity—are true regardless of the genre classification.
The story does differ from other parables in not being about a repeatable everyday situation, but rather is a specific story. In this sense it is like the parable of the good Samaritan. Still, the account does not recount a historical interchange between a specific rich man and a specific Lazarus, but pictures it. The details of the discussion in the afterlife, including the rich man’s ability to engage Abraham in discussion, are apocalyptic-like features in the account that show its rhetorical, parabolic, and symbolic character. Yet realities about accountability before God are portrayed." [1]
I know that's kind of a dense quote, but basically what he's saying is that there are some good reasons to think that this is a parable and other good reasons to think that it's a true story. Bock definitely leans toward "parable". I myself lean toward "true story". The fact that this is the only "parable" that the characters have names is a pretty big factor, as well as the fact that the interactions and way the story is told is very different from most of the parables. That's definitely not an opinion I would die over, but that's how I see it. Admittedly the conversation with Abraham is really unusual and brings up a lot of questions, but we just don't have enough data to really understand what's going on in that interaction clearly. Above all I think it would be VERY unwise to build our entire theology of the afterlife on this passage because a lot of things are unclear.
This story is really a testament to how hard the human heart can become. Though this story is mixed in with a lot of other content, I think it's pretty reasonable to think that it's directed at the Pharisees that don't believe in Jesus. There are many today who are just like them: their hearts have become so hard that no matter what is revealed to them they will reject it. They ask for signs from God of His existence and reject every sign they receive. It breaks my heart.
"Even if one rises from the dead, they will still not be convinced! Those reading the parable in the Gospel, knowing the story of Jesus, are aware just how true this remark is. Jesus’ resurrection convinced only some that God was working through him. A hard heart produces eyes that do not see the activity of God and ears that do not heed his warnings, much less the revelation he graciously reveals. The parable closes with a dark and tragic note about how humanity often misses the opportunities God makes available to them." [2]
[1] Darrell L. Bock, The NIV Application Commentary: Luke (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 432.
[2] Ibid. 434.
[2] Ibid. 434.
RSS Feed
