FRESNO PACIFIC BIBLICAL SEMINARY
THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS: LUKE 16.19-31
DR. GEDDERT BIB-712 INTERMEDIATE GREEK EXEGESIS
JASON M HILDEBRANDT DECEMBER 6, 2011
Hildebrandt 1 Translation 19
A certain man was rich, and he dressed in purple and fine linen feasting in splendor every day. And a certain poor man by the name of Lazarus was cast down at his gates. He was covered in sores. 21He desired to be filled with the food that fell from the rich man’s table, and even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22And it happened that the poor man died and was carried by angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man died also and was buried. 23In Hades, while being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham from a distance and Lazarus in his bosom. 24He cried out, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus in order that he might dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am suffering in these flames.” 25But Abraham said, “My child, remember that you received your good things in your life, and Lazarus received bad things. Now he is being comforted here, but you are suffering pain. 26 Besides, between us and all of you a great chasm has been set in place. The ones who wish to go through from here to all of you are not able, and from there they cannot cross over to us.” 27He said, “I ask you then, father, that you send him into my father’s house 28for I have five brothers that he must warn in order that they do not come to this place of torment also. 29Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets; they must listen to them.” 30He said, “No, Father Abraham, but if someone for the dead went to them they would repent.” 31And he replied, “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, then if someone rose up from the dead neither will they be convinced then.” 20
Discussion Recently talk about the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus has increased as some prominent Christian preachers question the doctrine of hell. On one side, the parable is cited as evidence that Jesus taught about torment in hell, but the other side recognizes the limitations of drawing concrete conclusions from parables. Discussion of the nature of hell, however, distracts from the author’s intentions for the parable in the Gospel. A close look at the parable within its literary context will shed light on the theme’s that Luke has woven into his Gospel and allow the reader to come to surprising and disconcerting conclusions. The parable is unique to Luke with no close parallels in the other Gospels. Luke placed the parable in the context of Jesus’ critique of money. After teaching a crowd that included Pharisees and scribes, Jesus turns to teach his disciples at the beginning of chapter sixteen, but Luke later reveals that the crowd is still gathered. Jesus tells a parable concerning a dishonest manager and his forgiveness of debts, which he follows with harsh words about wealth. The
Hildebrandt 2 Pharisees become agitated. Luke gives the reason. They are lovers of money. Jesus returns his attention to them, and after a short discourse he tells them another parable. Before examining the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, it will be useful to examine the other instances in the Gospel were Luke records Jesus’ teachings about wealth and money in order to understand this parable. Before Jesus is born, Luke records a song of praise sung by Marie. The Magnificat introduces many of the themes that will run throughout the Gospel. Important for this discussion, Mary sings a chiasm predicting an eschatological reversal (1.52-3).1 The rulers will be replaced by the humbled, and the hungry will be satisfied. These are key components of the kingdom of heaven which will claim later is inaugurated by his presence. In the wilderness, John the Baptist preaches repentance. He instructs the crowds that repentance involves sharing with those in need (3.11). He instructs his listeners to give their extra cloaks to those who have none and to give food to the hungry—something the rich man in the parable neglects to do for Lazarus. Even before Jesus’ ministry has begun a call to care for the poor has been issued by the one who prefigures him. Soon after beginning his ministry, Jesus goes to Nazareth to preach. He reads from Isaiah 61.1-2 including a promise of good news to the poor, and then he claims the fulfillment of the promises. The people of Nazareth, however, become irate and attempt hurt him because he claims that the fulfillment will not benefit those who expect it. Luke’s counterpart to Matthew’s Beatitudes is much less spiritualized (6.20-6). It is not the poor in spirit who are blessed, but the literal poor. Luke also includes a list of woes. These pronouncements again predict the eschatological reversal, and they foreshadow the fates of the rich man and Lazarus in the parable. Within the same group of teachings, Jesus urges his 1
Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 99.
Hildebrandt 3 listeners to give to enemies expecting nothing in return—how much more to someone who is not an enemy! As his disciples argue about who is the greatest, Jesus corrects them. In the kingdom, being the greatest means nothing. Being the least is much better (9.48). Later, while teaching about kingdom of heaven and who will get in, he repeats the message (13.30). When confronted with the issue of purity at the table, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and lawyers present for failing on issues of justice. The Pharisees wash their hands and give their tithes, but they fail to take care of the needy. The lawyers, likewise, create burdens for the people in order to harm, failing to show mercy to those who strain under the law. Remaining pure not only involves washing the outside, but matters of justice reflect inner purity (11.42-6). At a banquet, Jesus instructs the host to invite the poor, the crippled and other outcasts. While the rich could repay the favor, oppressed cannot. By inviting the rich, he will be repaid in this life, but by inviting the poor he will be repaid at the resurrection of the just (14.12-14). Finally, in chapter sixteen a prolonged section of teachings about money takes place. To the disciples, Jesus tells a parable about a dishonest manager who forgives debts to his master in order to secure friends and favors after his upcoming termination. Jesus then commend’s the dishonest manager as a model of debt forgiveness and good stewardship of money.2 He finishes the lesson by cautioning his followers against the idolatry that money often creates (16.13). Then to the agitated Pharisees, Jesus tells a parable about a rich man and his neglect of the poor man at his gates. The parable begins with Jesus describing an ordinary rich man. His occupation is not given. Every day he dresses himself in purple as indicated by the imperfect middle indicative 2
Luise Schottroff, The Parables of Jesus(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2006), 160. Schottroff argues convincingly that kuvrioV in v. 8a refers to Jesus and not the manager’s master. Even if one does not follow Schottroff, stewardship of money in contrast to that of the world is the focus of the parable.
Hildebrandt 4 verb, ejnedidusvketo. Purple is the color of royalty and extreme wealth. He also wears fine white linens. The Greek word used, buvssoV, comes from a Semitic word referring to expensive Egyptian cotton used for undergarments. As Kenneth Bailey wryly puts it, “This man wears nothing but purple robes […] And for anyone who is interested, he also has very expensive underwear. The light humor of Jesus appears in this scene.”3 The description of the man’s wealth does not end there. Not only does he dress in expensive clothes every day, but he is “splendidly making merry every day” an idiom referring to lavish feasts.4 The participle comes from the same verb used to describe the feast in the Parable of the Lost Son. In a society where calves were slaughtered for important occasions only, this man is rich enough to do it every day. Joel Green notes a possible allusion to Agrippa II who, legends claim, hosted banquets that could easily serve one hundred quests.5 Decadence aside, the rich man also fails to observe the Sabbath by feasting on it and not allowing his servants a day of rest.6 Using parallelism, Jesus then describes another man—this one poor. The poor man is not anonymous. In all of Jesus’ parables, this poor man holds a special distinction. He is the only character in a parable to be given a name. He is called Lazarus which means, “My God helps.”7 With the description that follows, the reader expects that the name is ironic. Why does the poor receive a name, but the rich man remains nameless? Green gives a possible explanation: “perhaps this is Jesus’ way of inviting his money-loving listeners’ to provide their own [name].”8
3
Kenneth Bailey, "The New Testament Job: The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man An Exercise in Middle Eastern New Testament Studies," TR 29 no. 1 (2008), 22. 4 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke, (Anchor New York: Doubleday, 1985) 1131. 5 Green, Luke, 605-6. 6 Bailey, “The New Testament Job,” 22. 7 Green, Luke, 606 8 idem, 606.
Hildebrandt 5 Lazarus lies outside the rich man’s gate where he has been “cast down.”9 Presumably, Lazarus is a cripple who has been cast down at the rich man’s gate in order to beg.10 There’s no reason to read charity into the verb by surmising that he has been placed there by friends as a suitable place to beg. The participle describing the rich man refers to lavish feasts, but the participle referring to Lazarus, ejpiqumw:n, refers to his longing to be filled with the scraps from the rich man’s table. The rich man dresses himself in expensive, but Lazarus is covered in sores. The rich man is surrounded by friends at his banquets, but Lazarus’ only companions are dogs. Picking up on the negative connotations associated with dogs in the Bible, Green views the dogs that lick Lazarus’ wounds as a nuisance. He cautions against Western ideas about dogs as man’s helper and friend. They are unclean, and they torment him by aggravating his sores.11 Bailey reads the text differently. Picking up on the ajllav as a contraction indicating strong contrast and a translation in some thousand year old Arabic commentaries that make the contrast explicit, Bailey views the dogs as a comfort to poor Lazarus. Servants pamper the rich man, and dogs care for Lazarus.12 Bailey’s reading maintains a strong parallel between the rich man and Lazarus. The dogs are still unclean making the contrast even more explicit. First the rich man is described in his decadence; then in parallel fashion Jesus describes Lazarus’ misery. In the second set of descriptions, the order is reversed creating a chiasm to further highlight the contrast between the two men. Lazarus dies.13 No mention of his burial is made, but Jesus tells that he is carried to the bosom of Abraham. The bosom of Abraham does
From the pluperfect passive of bavllw. Green, Luke, 606; Fitzmyer, Luke, 1131. 11 Green, Luke, 606. 12 Bailey, “The New Testament Job,” 23-4. 13 ejgevneto de; ajpoqanei:n to;n ptqco;n The subject of the infinitive is in the accusative case. The most natural translastion is then “and it happened that the poor man died.” Fitzmyer, Luke, 1132. 9
10
Hildebrandt 6 not necessarily mean he is in paradise, but certainly this is a place of bliss.14 The rich man dies as well. Where Lazarus is left unburied in disgrace, the rich man is given a proper burial in his final act of privilege.15 In contrast to Lazarus’ bliss, the rich man no exists in torment. The first participial phrase, ejpavraV tou;V ojfqalmouvV, is a participle of attendant circumstance. The second participial phrase, uJpavrcwn ejn basavnoiV, is temporal adverbial participle denoting contemporaneous action in the present tense. At this point it should be pointed out that Jesus’ intention in telling the parable is not to set out topography of life after death. This parable takes the form of a “Pearly Gate story,” a story about the afterlife that makes a point about current social or political issues.16 The topographical details of Hades only serve to illustrate the points of the story. Hades is the general resting place of the dead, but the Jews did believe that separate abodes based on righteousness and unrighteousness.17 Another participle of attendant circumstance and verb combination begins the dialogue in the parable.18 Lazarus cries out his Father Abraham for mercy. The reader/hearer is left to decide whether Abraham, who was famous for his hospitality, truly is the father of the rich man, who could not be bothered to show hospitality to Lazarus.19 Green interprets the request for relief as his continued oppression of Lazarus. Even in the after Lazarus must serve the rich man. He is right to see the irony of request for help from Lazarus who never received help in life, but continued parallelism better explains the request. Before Lazarus desired food from the rich
14
Green, Luke, 607. Green, Luke, 607. 16 Bailey, “The New Testament Job,” 19. 17 Green, Luke, 607. 18 fwnhvsaV ei\pen 19 Green, Luke, 608. 15
Hildebrandt 7 man, and now the rich man desires for his thirst to be quenched. Their fortunes have been reversed as predicted in 6.20-6.20 The rich man makes his appeal based on familial obligations. As patriarch, Abraham is obligated to assist his kinsmen. His words are familiar to Lazarus. “Have mercy on me,” is the cry of a beggar.21 He requests that Abraham send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and touch it to his tongue to give him relief from the flames.22 Abraham acknowledges the rich man as a descendent, possibly even returning the familial endearment that the rich man invoked. He confirms the eschatological reversal predicted in 6.20-6. The rich man lived comfortably in his own life. He already received his reward from God. Lazarus, who received bad or evil things from the rich man in his life, is comforted by the presence of Abraham. 23 Abraham continues. In life, the distance between the rich man and Lazarus was easily traversable. In death, it is impossible to traverse the distance. Before, only a gate separated them. Now they are separated by a great chasm.24 Abraham also makes a radical distinction. The second and third person pronouns in this sentence are plural as if Abraham is saying between those like us and those like you there is a great chasm.25 The rich man changes his tune, seemingly accepting his fate. He requests that Abraham now send Lazarus as a messenger to his brothers. Literally, Lazarus is to witness to them the fate that awaits them if they do not make changes. Abraham replies that they already have everything they need in order to avoid a similar fate. They have Moses and the prophets. The rich man does not give. He had Moses and the prophets, but he failed to hear them. So will his 20
Schottroff, Parables, 166. Bailey, “The New Testament Job,” 26. 22 I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel According to Luke, (NIGTC Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 637.bavptw in the infinitive takes its subject in the accusative and its direct object in the genitive. 23 Bailey, “The New Testament Job,” 27. Here, the giver is God. Jesus is using the divine passive. 24 Green, Luke, 608. 25 idem, 608. 21
Hildebrandt 8 brothers. He pleads. A messenger from the dead will surely cause them to repent. Abraham knows otherwise. A messenger from the will not convince them if they failed to hear Moses and the profits. At this point, attempts have been made to recognize a foreshadowing of Jesus’ coming resurrection or even a post-Easter addition to the parable. This does not make much sense. First, Lazarus would be ghost, not a resurrected person. Second, it is not the resurrection that convinces the disciples to repent, but Jesus’ teaching from the scriptures.26 Having finished the parable, Jesus returns to teaching the disciples. His hearers and Luke’s readers are left to sort out the meaning. Luke’s readers should not be surprised by the outcome at this point. Jesus’ critique of money and greed has been present throughout the Gospel. The reader is also aware that Lazarus’ death was preventable. The rich man knew the Torah yet he still let Lazarus waste away at his gate while he wasted his wealth on expensive clothes and feasts. The rich man extended hospitality to those like him, but he could not be bothered to spare any hospitality for Lazarus. Luise Schottroff puts it bluntly. It is the rich man’s fault that Lazarus died. He had the power and the impetus to save Lazarus’ life, and he did not.27 What is true for the fictional character in the story will be true for the hearers and readers. Within our own context we begin to see the viewpoint of the Occupy movement. There is a groaning for justice in America. Americans are beginning to realize that the super rich enjoy their wealth at the expense of the poor and that their fortunes are built on the backs of the unfortunate. In the Christian worldview, we can see this critique in Jesus’ teachings, but we can also see a way through to the other side. Yes, corporations and a few individuals control too
26 27
Schottroff, Parables, 166. idem, 167.
Hildebrandt 9 large a portion of the wealth, but the rest of America holds a sizeable share of wealth, too. White Christians, in particular, are blessed financially. The obvious action certainly is not easy. The rich man ignored the lame and sick man at his door step; as followers of Jesus, we should not. Just as then, Jesus’ parable subverts the greed of society today. Be wary of living comfortably and ignoring the needs of the desperately needy.
Hildebrandt 10
Bibliography Bailey, Kenneth E. 2008. "The New Testament Job: The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man An Exercise in Middle Eastern New Testament Studies." Theological Review 29, no. 1: 12-30. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed December 6, 2011). Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Luke X-XXIV. The Anchor Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1985. Green, J. B. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. Schottroff, Luise. The Parables of Jesus. Minneapolis: Fortess, 2006.
