Day 1386 – Can You Hear Me Now?

A sermon given at Northside Presbyterian Church, September 25, 2016, Chattanooga, TN

OT reading: Amos 6:1,4-7

Epistles Reading:  1 Timothy 6:13-19

NT Reading: Luke 16: 19-31

Here we go again with another parable, Lazarus (the only parable where a name is given, it means “one who God helps") and the rich man.  Here are a few useful pointers as reminders. Jesus said that he would use only parables to communicate the good news, (see Matthew 13:10-15,35). He chose to do this because parables are intentionally hard nuts to crack.

Fred Cradock describes a parable as a literary device most closely related to poetry. It does not deal with concrete meaning, but the subjective or metaphorical nature of reality. They are complex, obscure and even outrageous they contradict the initial “common sense” impression upsetting the listener’s world.  Expect them to disrupt conventional thinking and cause you to consider fully the implication of what has been said. In almost every case we will take sides with one of the characters in the parable when in actuality Jesus holds the listener as the object.

The value of a metaphorical meaning allows us to apply the meaning in the historical setting to the setting in which one hears the parable, that is, with discernment a parable is a generalized teaching guiding the present action of the faithful Christian.

All the parables and events we have read over the last several weeks at the deepest level are about building righteous living from having the spirit of the Law written in our heart. Jesus consistently points towards the timeless spirit of the Law being compassion. In the Leviticus Holiness code(Chapter 19:1-18) the justification to have a Godly, compassionate attitude towards one’s brother’s and sister’s blares from verse 2 like an air horn, “You shall be holy because I the Lord your God AM holy.” Let’s look at more closely at this parable told to the Pharisees to see if it is about wealth and poverty or trying to be holy.

It begins, “There (once) was a rich man…,” a classic “story format” that tells us Jesus is not using a real event. Jesus sets the first scene in these first three verses as one of immense contrast between a sick and disabled man whose sores dogs lick and a very rich man partying indifferently. Immense contrast persists through the entire parable.

We are almost certainly expected to identify the rich man (wearing purple and fine linen and “feasting sumptuously”) as a symbol of the rich, religious governing elite. The Greek words actually suggest not necessarily just a sumptuous feast but extravagant partying. The Pharisees however, probably think the rich man is only enjoying what we call today the fruit of the prosperity gospel. Deuteronomic religious thought ( Deuteronomy 30:1-9) understands the Moses to say that the righteous meticulously follow the Law and will be blessed with reward in this life and the impenitent, curses.

So, to the Pharisees this poor man Lazarus, sick with sores on his body and disabled, literally laying outside the rich man’s door, or on his front porch is an outcast sinner. (Remember Job’s friends?) We know Lazarus, the one God helps, is sick and disabled (See KJV or ESV) because the Greek word used to describe him says he was “thrown or put” on the rich man’s porch. The custom of the time expected friends or relatives to take a person who was so ill he could not get there on his own to a place where alms might be gained.

The Pharisees may also recognize Jesus adopted a common story that circulated at the time to construct this parable.  Literature from 47 AD records an old Egyptian folktale about a rich ruler and poor man who died and in the afterlife the poor man was enthroned but the rich ruler was tormented. I would not be surprised that the Pharisees were wondering why is God going to help (Lazarus) this sick and disabled man they believed was a sinner and outcast, and not the rich man; furthermore, what does an Egyptian folktale have to do with them?  Then suddenly tragedy strikes in another element of contrast. The poor man dies and is immediately taken to heaven, but the rich man dies and is buried.

The Pharisees must be more outraged. Only two persons in the OT of great divine favor were carried to heaven and not buried, Elijah and Enoch. How can Jesus compare this outcast to Elijah or Enoch! Adding to the outrage, we find out the rich man was buried, consigned to “sleeping with his ancestors” separated from God and life itself and not only opposed to Lazarus, but the rich man ends up in Sheol. (Hades is the Greek word used for Sheol, the resting place of the dead, or Gehenna, the Hinnon Valley where some of the kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire) as the next verses say,  

²³ In Hades, where he was being tormented, he looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. ²⁴ He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am in agony in these flames.’ ²⁵ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. ²⁶ Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’

This story twists Judaic righteousness of the Pharisees into a pretzel. The rich man asked for water from the finger of an outcast, a person a righteous person would never touch! No explanation for the reversal in death is given. Why was the outcast taken to Abraham in the afterlife. Perhaps his infirmities and suffering evil things on earth justified his comfort now as Psalm 22 says?

Today we easily accept this reversal in fortune of Lazarus and the rich man as obvious, the sick and disabled man gains his positive reward in death and the indifferent rich man who used his wealth only for personal pleasure gets his reward as torment. The Pharisees however would object to an outcast marked by sin received a reward and the rich man whose wealth is a mark of righteousness receiving punishment.

There parable so far judges neither man. Abraham only tells the rich man who asks for a drop of water: “Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’”  Something must be more deeply buried in verse 26 than a chasm between the poor and disabled and the wealthy.

Lazarus fades from view as only a would-be messenger when the rich man turns altruistic and worries over his brothers. Now the parable focuses only on the rich man, his brothers and the Law. The rich man still thinks himself righteous (as do the Pharisees), and in a fit of compassion for his brothers begs Abraham to send Lazarus back from the death to warn them to change their ways.

Abraham says no, they must listen to Moses and the prophets. The rich man agrees they will not listen but pleads that sending someone back from the dead will open their eyes to repentance.

When the rich man says they will not listen to Moses, Abraham seals the fate of the rich man and his brothers in a more severe and biting way. Their fate rests on their ears. If they will not “listen to Moses and the prophets” (that is, live with the Law written on their hearts), one person resurrected from the dead will not change them.

We and the Pharisees are still left to wonder about Lazarus who never speaks. What about him merited grace? How is it squared by the last verse?

Reflection

On one hand Jesus has adopted an ancient story about the misuse of wealth and unwillingness or inability to live in a way that reflects the Law that shapes Hebrew history. Moses tells us (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) observing the Law is not difficult, you do not need to “go to Heaven or beyond the far sea” to bring the Law close to home. Amos 6:1,4-7 takes both Israel and Judah to task for not living the law, misusing of wealth and mistreating fellow citizens. Isaiah 1:12-17 goes further in a brutally harsh indictment of Zion for reducing life, law and worship to celebratory parties and other forms of self-aggrandizement. We heard Paul, a Pharisee’s Pharisee, say in 1 Timothy 6:13-19, “^…to keep the commandment without spot or blame... those who are rich, not to be haughty, or hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but rather on God who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Repeating Isaiah, they are to do good, to be rich in good works, generous, and ready to share, thus storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life that really is life.

Is Lazarus a prop in a parable telling us to be wise in how we use our possessions, and treat sinners and outcasts?  It makes a good stewardship campaign sermon, but isn’t that sort of a trivial interpretation?

The three parables, the lost sheep, the lost coin and the man who had two sons are often read as parables about the promise to Judaism and those it calls outcasts. Could Jesus again be using sick and disabled Lazarus as a stand-in for all outcasts of Hebrew society, and the rich man is a stand-in for the Pharisees and its religious governance who will hear about the soon-to-be resurrected Jesus?  Or is this also trivial, misleading us into thinking this parable is only about the Pharisees?

Joel Green, a seminarian, in his book, Hearing the New Testament maintains the challenge of every Christian is to understand the historical context of scripture and apply it to the present. That is, to determine how to be “historically righteous” in the present  time whose character and circumstances differ wildly from the historical context.

Rich versus sick and disabled? People quibble whether we are better off now than then. We have scriptures such as Amos and Isaiah that describe gross abuse of the poor and outcasts, and of religious societies replete with hypocrisy.  Some modern folks offer a scientific comparison of then and now to conclude economic disparity in America is worse. But the historical context then and now differs radically. We seem on whole much better off today. We have global access to medical care and vaccines against diseases that kill and cripple, albeit limited and costly for some. Most people have cell phones. On the other hand, we cannot deny that great economic disparity exists right here in Chattanooga. We can’t wave it away as someone else’s fault which a former national campaign manager tried last week saying that any African-American who is still poor after the last 50 years can blame only them self. A self-made man is the greatest heresy. Joel Green wants us to ask, “How does this parable helps us to live faithfully in an age of plenty immersed in a seductive consumer culture?”

In this parable about Lazarus, that their infirmities merit saving grace? About Jesus speaking of his resurrection and grace, or telling the Pharisees and us to use his life as the model to live ours? Jesus often concludes a parable, “let those who have ears hear.” In that perspective, are the Abraham’s final words to the rich man, “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead,’” directed to us as well as to the Pharisees? Does this parable pose a timeless question about holiness, “Do we seriously believe that the grace of the good news of Jesus spans the chasm between life and death, that God helps the one who works to perfect righteous through living with the spirit of the Law written in our hearts? To stretch the old Verizon commercial seriously beyond its original purpose, Is Jesus using this parable to ask each of us, “Can you hear me now?”

Amen