No, I think the key is to understand the genre of the story – a parable – rather than change the words to mean something else. Look closely at the description: this is quite the wild afterlife. The rich man is in torment across a chasm from Abraham who has Lazarus on his lap. This afterlife is run by Abraham! We hear of Abraham, angels, Moses, prophets – but God is never mentioned. The rich man keeps calling Abraham “father” and Abraham calls him “child.” But Lazarus is the guy who actually gets to be with him, like a child on Daddy’s knee!
This is a bitingly sarcastic parody of the rich religious establishment. Read Luke 16:14 and it’s clear who the rich man in verse 19 represents. Jesus takes their expectations, based on being children of Abraham, and mocks them. The rich man ends up in torment, but even that is played for laughs. He’s suffering so bad that the only thing that would make him feel better is for Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and touch his tongue. He asks so politely! When Abraham demurs, he politely begs for Lazarus to be sent to his brothers instead of to his tongue. He doesn’t lose his cool until Abraham suggests his brothers wouldn’t listen. “No, father Abraham!” he says, flatly contradicting his hero. “They’re not that far gone! They’d listen. I know them better than you.”
But of course Jesus is right. Even when a real man named Lazarus was sent back from the dead, some of those religious elite “brothers” prepared to kill him along with Jesus (John 11:45–53 and 12:10).
This parable doesn’t give us a photo-realistic glimpse of the afterlife. We don’t need to alter Jesus’ words, but neither do we need to believe that the afterlife is really run by Abraham. It’s a reductio ad absurdum of the beliefs of the religious elite. Their smug confidence that they know God’s ways and perhaps even control God’s ways has blinded them to how God is working for their rescue.
Even if it is a parable that doesn’t mean everything in it is to be ignored and discarded. The fact that Luke 18:1-8 is a parable doesn’t mean there are no such things as judges or that things do not happen in such a way. Too much of the parable in Luke 16 is all focused on how the torment which the rich man experiences is inescapable for this to simply be ignored and make it all about a parody of the rich establishment. Sure Jesus is criticizing the obsession of the religious establishment with money. But reducing what Jesus says to that alone is going too far. One aspect of what someone says is not a good excuse for ignoring everything else.
Whatever we believe about punishment or anything else in the next life, it seems clear to me that there is a “Last Judgment” and it won’t be all warm and fuzzy. It is mentioned many times in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, sometimes quite violently. That is why the Nicene Creed says that Jesus “will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.” And the Dies Irae (“Day of Wrath”) is part of the requiem mass.
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
50
Yeah, very human. 100%. Not divine. In interpretation. The intent will have been different. I’m looking forward to it, to see how Jesus saves.
I’m a big fan of Keith Ward’s perspective from his book “Why there is almost certainly a God” - If we view disbelief as a form of ignorance in a world in which God is real, then at most what atheists are guilty of is intellectual myopia. Given that God is infinitely more patient and forgiving and loving than us, it stands to reason that God will treat ignorant people infinitely more mercifully than we would…and we just correct ignorance we don’t punish it.
More than this… How can we be so certain that the ignorance is theirs rather than our own. So I would apply Matthew 7 to say I wouldn’t want to be judged for my ignorance so it would be very unwise to judge other people for theirs.
Of course there seem to be people making this into a Pascal’s wager where it has to be an all or nothing bet. But this is a case where I think Einstein’s famous words “God does not play dice” has a sound theological meaning. A God who is so arbitrary like a slot machine doesn’t sound very good and just to me.
I guess given that constraint the definition wouldn’t work. It would just be reasonable and understandable to not believe if someone never felt any reality of God. Based on the Gospels it seems like God would treat that person as the Father of the Prodigal Son treats the Prodigal Son.
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
56
That’s big of you Ryan. The first two sentences. But the third When would God do that? Seeing as many people never feel any reality of God. I’m pretty typical - as a Westerner - in that I do and I don’t. At the same time.
I guess I don’t necessarily see the correction as being destruction or burning in a punitive sense. Perhaps it’s similar to the “burn” felt by exercise - that type of experience is painful but it leads to greater physical capabilities and ultimately improvement. I think if we accept the premise of a loving God then the corrective measures would have to be for the betterment of the creature God loved, so it wouldn’t make sense for him to just punish you.
If he does though I will definitely say what’s up to him for you anyways.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
59
Love betters better than punishment. Punishing the punished isn’t love.
When would God do that? Seeing as many people never feel any reality of God. I’m pretty typical - as a Westerner - in that I do and I don’t. At the same time.