Parable Status of Luke 16:19-31
The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: Luke 16:19-31
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a well-known passage in Luke's Gospel, recounting the story of a wealthy individual who ignores a beggar at his gate, only to find himself tormented in Hades while Lazarus is comforted in Abraham's bosom [4].
The passage begins with a vivid description of the rich man, who is clothed in purple and fine linen, and feasts sumptuously every day (Luke 16:19). In stark contrast, Lazarus, a poor man covered in sores, lies at the rich man's gate, longing to eat the scraps that fall from the rich man's table (Luke 16:20-21) [3].
The narrative then shifts to the afterlife, where the rich man finds himself in torment, while Lazarus is comforted by Abraham. The rich man, often referred to as "Dives" in tradition, appeals to Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his five brothers of the fate that awaits them (Luke 16:27-28) [6].
Literary Context
The parable is situated within a larger section of Luke's Gospel, where Jesus is teaching his disciples about the proper use of wealth and the dangers of covetousness (Luke 16:1-18). The parable serves as a warning to those who prioritize material possessions over spiritual well-being [5].
The surrounding context also highlights Jesus' interactions with the Pharisees, who are portrayed as being enamored with wealth and status (Luke 16:14-15). Jesus' teaching is thus directed not only at his disciples but also at the Pharisees, whom he rebukes for their hypocrisy [1].
Historical Setting
The parable is set in the context of Jesus' ministry in Palestine during the 1st century AD. The story reflects the social and economic realities of the time, where wealth and poverty coexisted in stark contrast [4].
The use of purple, a expensive dye made from mollusks, to describe the rich man's clothing highlights his wealth and status. This detail would have been significant to Luke's original audience, who would have understood the cultural and economic implications of such luxury [4].
Interpretation
The parable has been interpreted in various ways throughout history. Some have seen it as a literal depiction of the afterlife, while others have understood it as a parable with a more nuanced message [6].
According to John Gill, the parable is not an historical account of two individuals but rather a teaching tool used by Jesus to convey a spiritual truth [6]. The story is meant to illustrate the consequences of prioritizing wealth and status over spiritual well-being.
In the view of Adam Clarke, the parable is part of a larger section of Luke's Gospel that deals with the theme of wealth and its proper use. Clarke sees the parable as a warning to those who are complacent in their wealth and neglect the poor [5].
The parable has also been seen as a commentary on the Jewish scriptures, particularly the story of the patriarch Abraham. The use of Abraham as a character in the parable serves to underscore the continuity between the Old and New Testaments [2].
Range of Interpretations
The interpretation of the parable has varied across different Christian traditions. Some have seen it as a teaching on the importance of charity and compassion, while others have understood it as a warning against the dangers of wealth and materialism [9].
John Calvin, for example, references the parable in his Institutes, using it to illustrate the idea that the wicked will be punished in the afterlife [9].
The parable has also been used in various liturgical and devotional contexts throughout history. Its themes of wealth, poverty, and the afterlife continue to resonate with Christians today.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus remains a powerful and thought-provoking passage, challenging readers to reevaluate their priorities and attitudes towards wealth and material possessions. As the early church fathers and subsequent Christian traditions have demonstrated, this parable continues to offer insights into the human condition and the nature of God's kingdom [7, 8].
Sources
- Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Luke 16:15 cross-references: 1 Samuel 16:7, 1 Chronicles 29:17, 2 Chronicles 6:30, Psalms 7:9, Psalms 10:3, Psalms 49:13, Psalms 49:18, Psalms 139:1, Proverbs 16:5, Proverbs 20:6, Proverbs 21:2, Isaiah 1:10, Jeremiah 17:10, Amos 5:21, Malachi 3:15, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 23:5, Matthew 23:25, Luke 10:29, Luke 11:39, Luke 18:11, Luke 18:21, Luke 20:20, Luke 20:47, John 2:25, John 21:17, Acts 1:18, Acts 15:8, Romans 3:20, 1 Corinthians 4:5, James 2:21, 1 Peter 3:4, 1 Peter 5:5, Revelation 2:23”
- Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “John 5:47 cross-references: Luke 16:29, Luke 16:31”
- Treasury of Scripture Knowledge “Luke 16:19 cross-references: Judges 8:26, Esther 8:15, Job 21:11, Psalms 73:3, Proverbs 14:24, Isaiah 3:23, Ezekiel 16:13, Ezekiel 16:49, Ezekiel 27:7, Amos 6:4, Mark 15:17, Mark 15:20, Luke 12:16, Luke 15:13, Luke 16:1, Luke 18:24, James 5:1, Revelation 17:4, Revelation 18:7, Revelation 18:16”
- Luke (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Luke 16:19: 16:19-31 This parable reiterates the theme of the danger of riches introduced in 16:13-15 and returns to the idea that the coming of God’s Kingdom will mean the reversal of fortunes. The rich, proud, and powerful will be humbled and brought low, while the poor, humble, and oppressed will be exalted. 16:19 Purple was the color of royalty; Phoenician purple was an expensive dye made from mollusks.”
- Luke (Methodist/Wesleyan) “Adam Clarke on Luke 16 (introduction): The parable of the unjust steward, Luk 16:1-8. Christ applies this to his hearers, Luk 16:9-13. The Pharisees take offense, Luk 16:14. Our Lord reproves them, and shows the immutability of the law, Luk 16:15-17. Counsels against divorce, Luk 16:18. The story of the rich man and the beggar, commonly called Dives and Lazarus, Luk 16:19-31.”
- Luke (Baptist/Reformed) “John Gill on Luke 16:18: There was a certain rich man,.... In Beza's most ancient copy, and in another manuscript of his it is read by way of preface, "he said also another parable": which shows, that this is not a history of matter of fact, or an historical account of two such persons, as the "rich" man and the beggar, who had lately lived at Jerusalem; though the Papists pretend, to this day, to point out the very spot of ground in Jerusalem, where this rich man's house stood: nor is it to be understood parabolically of any particular rich man, or prince; as Saul the first king of Israel; or”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — CHAP. XVI.--OF THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS.: 33. Matthew proceeds with his narrative in these terms: "Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted of the devil. And when He had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. And when the tempter came to Him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. And so the account continues, until we”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — CHAP. XVI.--OF THE DERISION ASCRIBED TO THE ROBBERS, AND OF THE QUESTION REGARDING THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MATTHEW AND MARK ON THE ONE HAND, AND LUKE ON THE OTHER, WHEN THE LAST-NAMED E (part 1): 53. Matthew continues his narrative in these terms: "The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth."[4] Mark is quite in harmony with Matthew here, giving the same statement in different words.[5] On the other hand, Luke may be thought to contradict this, unless we be careful not to forget a certain mode of”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 41: the fleshy which by transferring the blame of its own wickedness to God, is wont to catch at a vain defence, you say that rectitude was given to man, in order to make it apparent he was the cause of his own destruction, I willingly assent. Only agree with me in this, that it is by his own fault he is stript of the ornaments in which the Lord at first attired him, and then let us unite in acknowledging that what he now wants is a physician, and not a defender. 19. There is nothing more frequent in their mouths than the parable of th”