The True Story in Detail
The story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable (Matthew 13:34). Once this is recognized the interpretation behind the narrative can become quite meaningful. It is also very important to note the context in which the parable is found. There was a reason why Christ spoke this parable at that time. Christ had just given His teaching about the unjust steward who had mishandled his master’s money (Luke 16:1–13). This parable was told to further illustrate what proper stewardship is.
Let us first consider the identification of Lazarus. This is the only time in Christ’s parables that a person’s name is used. Some have imagined that this use of a personal name precludes the story being a parable. But this is hardly true. The name "Lazarus" is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Eleazar" (which means "God has helped"). The name was a common Hebrew word used for eleven different persons in the Old Testament.
When one analyzes the parable, this Eleazar can be identified. He was one who must have had some kind of affinity with Abraham (or the Abrahamic covenant), for the parable places him in Abraham’s bosom after death. But he was probably a Gentile. The phrase "desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table" was typical of Gentile identification (see Matthew 15:22–28). Even the phrase "laid at his gate" is reminiscent of the normal one used by Jews to denote the Gentile proselyte "Proselyte of the Gate." This Eleazar must also have been associated with stewardship because Christ gave the parable precisely for the reason of explaining what represents the true steward.
There was only one Eleazar in the historical part of the Bible that fits the description. He was a person associated with Abraham, he was a Gentile (not an ethnic part of the Abrahamic family), and a steward. He was Eleazar of Damascus, the chief steward of Abraham.
"And Abram said, ‘Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eleazar [Lazarus] of Damascus and lo, one born in my house is mine heir.’"
Genesis 15:2–3
Long ago it was suggested that the Lazarus of the parable represented the Eleazar associated with Abraham (Geiger, JuJ Zejtschr., 1868, p. 196 sq.), but for some reason very few modern commentators have taken up the identification. But once this simple connection is made, a flood of light emerges on the scene which can interpret the parable with real meaning.
The Lazarus of the parable represented Abraham’s faithful steward Eleazar. And faithful he was! Though he had been the legal heir to receive all of Abraham’s possessions (Genesis 15:3), Abraham gave him an assignment which was to result in his own disinheritance. But the Bible shows he carried out the orders of Abraham in a precise (and faithful) way.
"And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house [Eleazar], that ruled over all that he had, ‘Put, I pray thee, your hand under my thigh: and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that you shall not take a wife unto my son [Isaac] of the daughters of the Canaanites.’"
Genesis 24:2–3
Eleazar agreed to do what Abraham desired, although the fulfillment of his task meant the complete abandonment of Eleazar’s claim to any of Abraham’s inheritance—both present and future! Each step that Eleazar took northward to procure a wife for Isaac was a step towards his own disqualification. Eleazar recognized this, for he admitted to Laban, Rebecca’s brother, that "unto him [Isaac] hath he [Abraham] given all that he hath"(Genesis 24:36). There was nothing left for him! Thus, Eleazar’s faithfulness to Abraham resulted in his own disinheritance from all the promises of blessing which God had given to Abraham. They were now given to Isaac and his future family. That inheritance included wealth, prestige, power, kingship, priesthood, and the land of Canaan as an "everlasting" possession. But now Eleazar was "cast out." He and his seed would inherit nothing. Thus, the parable calls Lazarus a "beggar" who possessed nothing of earthly worth.
Who Was the Rich Man?
The Rich Man was an actual son of Abraham. Christ had him calling Abraham his "father" (Luke 16:24) and Abraham acknowledged him as "son" (verse 25). Such sonship made the Rich Man a legal possessor of Abraham’s inheritance. Indeed, the Rich Man had all the physical blessings promised to Abraham’s seed. He wore purple, the symbol of kingship, a sign that the Davidic or Messianic Kingdom was his. He wore linen, the symbol of priesthood, showing that God’s ordained priests and the Temple were his. Who was this Rich Man who possessed these blessings while living on the earth?
The Israelite tribe that finally assumed possession of both the kingdom and priesthood, and the tribe which became the representative one of all the promises given to Abraham, was Judah. There can not be the slightest doubt of this when the whole parable is analyzed. Remember that Judah had "five brothers." The Rich Man also had the same (verse 28).
"The sons of Leah; [1] Reuben; Jacob’s firstborn, and [2] Simeon, and [3]Levi, and Judah, and [4] Issachar, and [5] Zebulun."
Genesis 35:23"And Leah said ... ‘now will my husband be pleased to dwell with me; for I have born him six sons.’"
Genesis 30:20
Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and physical), Christ was showing that he had been unfaithful with his responsibilities. When the true inheritance was to be given, Judah was in "hades" and "in torment" while Lazarus (Eleazar, the faithful steward) was now in Abraham’s bosom. He was finally received into the "everlasting habitations" (verse 9).
....
2 comments:
I wonder if you could argue that the whole section running from Lk15:1 - 17:10, which is one long address by Jesus to the scribes and pharisees, is about the proper stewardship of the covenant / the law and the prophets.
The teachings between 15:1 and 17:10 are all given together at one time. He is speaking to the Pharisees and scribes, who could be described as the stewards of the scriptures. The law and prophets are referenced twice in the single speech running from 16:15-31. (16:16, 16:29)
Then you have 7 examples of stewardship:
1)shepherd as steward of sheep 15:1-7
2) woman as steward of coins 15:8-10
3) father as steward of sons 15:11-32
4) shrewd stewardship 16:1-13
5) faithful(?) stewardship 16:19-31
6) Characteristics of steward:
- not originator of sin 17:1-2
-forgiving 17:3-4
-faithful 17:5-6
7) Expectations of steward/servant 17:7-10
Then this scene ends and another begins.
I think the key to this section is the non-sequitur about divorce in 16:18(also quoted in Mt5:32,19:9 and Mk 10:11). Jesus may be directing our thoughts to Malach 2:16
“For the man who does not love his wife but divorces her, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.” Jesus often quotes a small snippet of scripture to invoke the meaning of a larger passage(Lk 7:22->Is 35:5, Mt 27:46->ps 22, Lk 23:46->ps 31)
Malachi indicts Judah as being bad stewards of his covenant, he uses the metaphor of marriage to describe their unfaithfulness.. Malachi addresses Judah in particular. The post you sent argues that the Lazarus story contrasts gentiles and the tribe of Judah in particular. Malachi condemns Judah by saying: “Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.” He says that Judah has "profaned the sanctuary, which he loves.” And the LORD rejects his offerings.
What do we know about the scribes and Pharisees’ love of the temple? In Matt 23 Jesus is again addressing the Pharisees and scribes as in Lk16, and says “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.” So Jesus and Malachi are directing their rebuke to men of Judah that love the sanctuary, rather than serving the God of the sanctuary.
-Malachi says they have profaned (Ml2:11) the sanctuary, Jesus says their justifications are an abomination (Lk16:15).
-Malachi says (Ml3:13) "What is the profit of our keeping his charge or of walking as in mounting before the LORD of hosts? And now cal the arrogant blessed.” Compare Jesus in Lk16 “You are those who justify yourselves before me, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.” In both cases the arrogant/self-justified call their arrogance good, but God/Jesus condemns it.
So Jesus is making a comparison between the Pharisees' treating of the law and prophets with a man who divorce his wife and marries another. The similarity is that the outward expression is the same, the Pharisees are outwardly being loyal to the law, but they have traded it for a different loyalty, to being justified and appearance. Just as a man who divorces his wife and marries another, is outwardly still participating in a covenant, but has broken the covenant with his wife and entered a different covenant. This is why Jesus says that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a dot of the law to fail. The original covenant is still in force, and trading it for another is spiritual adultery.
1)shepherd as steward of sheep 15:1-7
2) woman as steward of coins 15:8-10
3) father as steward of sons 15:11-32
4) shrewd stewardship 16:1-13
16:14-17 Pharisees described as objects of Malachi’s indictment
16:18 Trigger for Malachi teaching
5) faithful(?) stewardship 16:19-31
6) Characteristics of steward:
- not originator of sin 17:1-2
-forgiving 17:3-4
-faithful 17:5-6
7) Expectations of steward/servant 17:7-10
Post a Comment