NEW TESTAMENT ILLUSTRATION ON THE AFTERLIFE – LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN (LUKE 16:19-31).
By Ezekiel Kimosop
INTRODUCTION
We shall begin with the caveat that some scholars have cast doubt on the authority of this parable as an illustration of the Biblical afterlife. As Graig Blomberg notes, this school of thought considers the passage as a ‘fictitious narrative” by reason that Jesus was using it to illustrate deeper truths rather than to describe the afterlife. This assertion is partly true. The description of the afterlife experience in the parable is itself a basis for outlining kingdom truth and this can be attested in other sections of Scripture including the previous parables of Luke 14-15. However, the illustration of the afterlife experience is unmistakable and is consistent with the Jewish thought that was examined earlier in this paper.
In disputing the afterlife portrayal in the parable, Earle Ellis notes that the description of Hades in the parable is radically different from the conditions revealed in other passages of Scripture. Eduard Schweizer on his part observes that Hades, as described in the parable, is not synonymous with hell but was simply a holding place of the dead as they awaited judgment. These observations perhaps rest on the premise that since the brothers of the rich man were still alive on earth, it was not possible that God’s judgment could have taken place at this point and this places the validity of the afterlife experience into doubt.
This writer reckons that whereas the above observations have some merit, they cannot discount the validity of the afterlife experience as corroborated in Scripture and by none other Christ. The rich man was undoubtedly not in hell and neither were Abraham and Lazarus in heaven. However, it is undeniable that the two parties were eternally separated from each other as they awaited the final judgment. This therefore is an affirmation of the afterlife.
The parable confirms a number of important truths taught elsewhere in Scripture. First, the dead do not ordinarily return to life (2 Sam. 12:22-23; Heb. 9:27). The incident described in 1 Samuel 28:3-25 which was earlier examined in this paper is therefore among a number of exceptions outlined in Scripture. Secondly, God will judge all men according to their deeds on earth (Jer. 17:9; Rev. 20:11-15). Thirdly, there is a separation between the souls of the righteous and those of the wicked after death (John 11:25; Rom.3:23, 6:23; 2 Tim. 4:7-8).
In the African worldview, there appears to be no distinct theology on the judgment of the wicked in the afterlife or a separation facility for them. There is however evidence that the wicked were punished on earth and, depending on the gravity of their moral transgression, the punishment could extend to generations of their offspring. David Westerlund notes that a descendant was believed to suffer for the sins or transgressions attributed to an African ancestor.
This belief is also identified with the Kalenjin, a Nilotic group from which this writer hails. The idea of an eschatological progression of history towards judgment is in fact an alien notion in African thought. Time and history are equally alien concepts. As John Mbiti observes, “In African traditional thought, there is no concept of history moving forward towards a future climax, or towards an end of the world.” Mbiti adds that “the notion of a messianic hope, or a final destruction of the world, has no place in traditional concept of history.”
It is the view of this writer that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is significant in portraying the afterlife on the following premises. First, one of the characters mentioned is a Hebrew patriarch who is described in the Bible as the father of the Christian faith (Matthew 3:8-9). Secondly, Jesus affirms that God is the God of the living rather than the dead (Matt. 22:29-32). The mention of Abraham in the above parable is therefore instructive of his afterlife experience (Luke 16:31). Thirdly, Abraham’s reference to Moses and the prophets in Luke 16:29 is perhaps evidence of the validity of his patriarchal authority recognized in Jewish theology. Romans 4:3 proclaims that Abraham’s was declared righteous on account of his faith. He is therefore the father of both the Jew and the Gentile in Christ (Rom. 4:16).
Fourthly, Jesus himself gave the parable as part of his kingdom series that runs through Luke 14-16. It is inconceivable that the faith system associated with the kingdom life and the moral principles outlined in the parable could be fictitious as claimed by some. Nothing in the passage suggests that the narrative was false or fictitious. There is a convergence of the author-text context in this parable. Jesus authoritatively conveyed divine truth to his hearers on the afterlife.
PASSAGE ANALYSIS
Passage Analysis on the Parable or the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)
This parable is exclusive to Luke. From the study of the passage, we learn that the two characters are portrayed on two paradigms: a description of their earthly life and their afterlife. As Lois Malcolm rightly observes, this Lazarus is obviously different from the one described in John 11:1-44. The afterlife is apparently given a wider treatment in the parable (16:22-31) as compared with the earthly experience (16:19-21). This is perhaps indicative that the focus of the parable lay on the projection of the afterlife being consequent upon the earthly experience.
On the earthly experience, the rich man is introduced to the reader as an extremely rich and privileged man. He was a man of novelty who was “clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.” (16:19, NKJV). John Nolland observes a key irony in this parable that defies common Jewish tradition where poverty is assigned anonymity and wealth is acknowledged. In this case, Lazarus, a poor man, is mentioned by name even as the rich man is unidentified. It is instructive that Lazarus is translated El-azar (God has helped).
Lazarus is described as a beggar who was full of sores. He was possibly a leper (cf. Job 2:7-8) or a cripple. The fact that he was laid at the rich man’s gate suggests that he was unable to walk unaided and was possibly homeless. Jesus did not accuse the rich man of any particular violation. There is no evidence that he acquired his wealth by ungodly means. He simply never cared for the poor in his community of context (16:21). Warren Prestidge suggests that the parable was more about warning the godless wealthy rather than an illustration of the afterlife. This parable however appears to address both spectrums. It conveys the moral authority of the narrator while visualizing the world to come.
Both men eventually die. There is no mention of a burial in Lazarus’s case. Could this perhaps be by reason of the narrator’s design or a confirmation of Lazarus’ modesty? Lazarus is escorted by angels into an afterlife of comfort, being joined with Abraham a righteous man (16:22). This appears to affirm that even though Lazarus was poor he led a godly life on earth. This is consistent with Jesus’ statements in Matthew 6:19-21 and Luke 12:21. Again, nothing in the passage remotely suggests that the third character was a different person from the Abraham contemplated in other sections of Scripture. This further complicates the “fictitious” label that some have assigned this passage.
The rich man is buried and his soul is taken to Hades, a place reserved for the wicked under Hebrew theology (16:22-23). It is elsewhere identified with weeping and gnashing of teeth (cf. Matt. 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30; Luke 13:28).
In his affliction, the rich man requests Abraham to send Lazarus to help him cool his pain. Some say that that the rich man was used to ordering the poor around and this attitude was sharply confronted in the afterlife! Simon Perry notes that the rich man assumed that Lazarus was now Abraham’s servant. Ironically, the rich man was seeking the help that he denied the needy during his earthly life! The fact that the rich man identifies Lazarus by name is perhaps evidence that he was familiar with him.
Another paradox is presented in Luke 16:25 – the rich man, now reduced to a beggar, sought the mercy of the man that he had shunned on earth even as Lazarus is comforted in his new world. Given the overarching moral in this parable, the experiences of the two men in the afterlife are not by sheer coincidence. They are inextricably intertwined. Choices have consequences.
The African worldview recognizes that those who ignore their moral obligations on earth will be bring suffering upon themselves and their offspring. As Joseph Healey points out, African ancestors must have lived exemplary lives that touched the heart of the community. Africans consider it a bad omen and a curse to neglect the poor. They consider it a moral obligation to extend support to the disadvantaged in society. In some African societies, not all who die qualify for reverence as ancestors. They must have earned their honor. In this context, the conduct of the Rich Man in the parable is appalling. Some African ancestors are quickly forgotten by society because they did not exemplify quintessential communal support for their people. In other African communities, guests or strangers are an embodiment of ancestors and are served the portion that was due to the ancestors. Gregory Olikenyi observes that among the Bulsa of Northern Ghana, it was believed that ancestors visited the living in the form of beggars and lepers. It was therefore the duty of the host to show them hospitality in keeping with this theology. The rich man in the above parable therefore acted in an abominable way by failing to reach out to the needy in his society.
The rich man’s plea for Abraham’s help in sending Lazarus to warn his five brothers on earth is instructive of the fact that he had thrown all caution to the wind during his privileged earthly life. His brothers were probably no different from him, morally speaking. They possibly reeled in ravenousness in the manner that he himself had done. Again, it was impossible [and perhaps needless] to send anyone from the place of the dead to warn the living. They ought to listen to their prophets and teachers. Abraham’s statement is significant in that once a person dies, there is no opportunity to make amends with God. This is affirmed in Hebrews 9:27.
Some Bible scholars quoted by H.M Bardstad suggest that the idea of Sheol was not a quintessential Hebrew concept but was instead borrowed from some Middle Eastern death deities. They base their conclusion on the fact that this concept only appears in latter Biblical Hebrew and “when understood anthropomorphically, fits into semantic complex of the other ancient Near Eastern death deities such as Nergal, Ereshkigal or Mot”
Roman Catholics teach that the soul of the believer undergoes purification in purgatory to achieve the perfection for entry into heaven. Meanwhile, the dead are preserved in Hades awaiting the resurrection. The Roman Catholic doctrine on purification appears to be inconsistent with the teaching of the above passage. John Henry Hobert observes that Hades is a Greek reference to the underworld of the dead without any distinction of the righteous and the unrighteous and is the equivalent of the Jewish Sheol and the Latin Infernum. It is a term commonly employed in Anglican, Eastern Orthodox and Methodist theology.
The New Testament Scripture however presents an eschatological progression in the afterlife. When the rapture of the church finally takes place, the saints shall be transformed at the twinkling of an eye and shall take on new glorified bodies (1Cor. 15:42-54). 2Timothy 4:7-8; Rev. 6:9-11 teach or imply that the souls of the dead in Christ are preserved in the presence of God awaiting the resurrection. The wicked too are preserved for the final resurrection recorded in Rev. 20:7-15 where they shall be raised for their final condemnation and consignment into the lake of fire where “…the worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:48). This place is metaphorically described in Matthew 22:13 as “…outer darkness; [where] there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” It is elsewhere identified as “a furnace of fire” into which the wicked shall be cast (Matthew 13:50). It is also described as “the outer darkness” (Matt. 25:30) and this underscores the eternal separation of the wicked from the presence of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment