User:Vanderhoven/The rich man and lazarus as satire

 The Rich Man And Lazarus As Satire
 * An alternative interpretive approach to Luke 16

Satire can be defined as "biting wit, irony 			or sarcasm used to expose vice or folly...".1 And good satire never fails to inspire “laughter, contempt, or horror as it seeks to correct the follies and abuses it uncovers". 2

Long before Jonathan Swift penned his famous “A Modest Proposal” or Alexander Pope composed, “The Rape of the Lock”, Jesus of Nazareth distinguished himself as Master Satirist by His astonishing account of, “The Rich Man and Lazarus”. It is only hoped that this essay will serve to reveal and glorify Him, whose unique ability to use this literary genre, to torment the religious establishment and advance the Kingdom of God, remains unparalleled in history.

It is interesting that, whenever Jesus dealt with the religious rulers in Israel, He seemed to purposefully cloak the truth in the mystery of imagery, parable and allegory. When it came to actual condemnation of the religious elite however, Jesus was usually far more direct, blunt and sometimes “overtly antagonistic”. Even then, that antagonism was occasionally disguised in a satirical parable or allegory that contained a punch or barb (biting wit and irony) designed to alter false perceptions of those same religious authorities. Luke 16, almost in its entirety, incorporates this kind of veiled indignation; where the targeted religious faction, (i.e. the Pharisees), were being set up for public ridicule by unexpected revelations of their hidden vices, including covetousness, self-righteousness and hypocrisy.

This becomes quite evident as we consider the parable of The Dishonest Steward immediately preceding our story of The Rich Man and Lazarus. (Luke 16:1-16)  The account begins with the Master discovering that the steward handling all his business affairs has squandered his possessions. With the cat out of the bag, the covetous steward makes one final dishonest attempt to secure his own temporal future, by ingeniously letting his master's debtors off the hook with a rather attractive partial-debt repayment plan. Jesus, no doubt, had most of the people in his immediate audience in stitches by having the Master, who seems entirely impressed, commend his servant for shrewdly carrying out this absolutely unscrupulous, self-serving and financially ruinous scheme.

Assuming that God is the Master who is being defrauded, this parable appears to be saying that God will honor servants who swindle him in the pursuit of self-interest. Jesus then concludes this "tongue in cheek" presentation with some "go ahead" advice that more than merely borders on irony.

9. And I say unto you, make to yourselves friends of		the mammon of unrighteousness; that when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.

Now contrast with this, the point Jesus was actually driving home through this satirical parable.

10. He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much...

11. If ye therefore have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

13. No servant can serve two masters... Ye cannot serve both God and mammon.

The Pharisees were the ones in Jesus' audience who were guilty of "making to themselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness". They knew Jesus spoke this parable against them but they couldn't refute His satirized logic. Good satire, subtly but forcefully, brings home moral or spiritual truths and at the same time leaves unworthy opponents speechless; unable to argue, without first acknowledging that they fit into the negative allegory. The Pharisees were defenseless. They could only attack the person, not the concepts Jesus was challenging them with.

14. And the Pharisees also who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

The parable of the dishonest steward was clearly told to discredit, not praise, the Pharisees. Through the vehicle of satire, (i.e. by having the master commend the steward's dishonesty) Jesus publicly ridiculed their claim to God's recognition and approval. After pointedly exposing both their covetousness and disloyalty, Jesus directly condemns the Pharisees for whitewashing their actions before men.

15. And he said unto them, YE ARE THEY WHICH JUSTIFY YOURSELVES BEFORE MEN; but God knows your hearts: For that which is highly esteemed among men, is abomination in the sight of God.

HAVING ESTABLISHED THAT JESUS USED SATIRE AS A TEACHING STRATEGY IN THIS CHAPTER, COULD THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS BE ANOTHER FORM OF SATIRE DIRECTED AGAINST THE PHARISEES? AND IF IT IS, WHAT MIGHT BE THE POINT OF THIS FICTIONAL EPISODE?

The parable of the dishonest steward ended on a sour note with Jesus publicly accusing the Pharisees of justifying themselves before men. It was crucial for the Pharisees to maintain a facade of righteousness before the people since their authority was predicated on the popular assumption of that righteousness. But, what perhaps isn't so obvious is how they justified themselves in the eyes of common people who saw them consistently ignore the needs of widows, beggars and cripples. Certainly the Pharisees, as our story corroborates, could not have justified themselves by appealing to the LAW AND THE PROPHETS (verse 29). So to what might the Pharisees have appealed to cloak their sin and provide support for their outward pretense of righteousness? WELL, HOW ABOUT THEIR TRADITION?

LET'S LOOK AT TRADITION: WHAT ELEMENTS OF PHARISAIC TRADITION ARE INCLUDED IN THIS STORY?

ABRAHAM'S BOSOM: History confirms that Hades (Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Sheol) was originally understood by the Jews to be, “the ultimate resting place of all mankind". 3    The Hebrew scriptures relegated the good as well as the wicked to this location at death. (Gen. 42:38, Ps.16:9-10, Job 14:13).

The idea that Sheol was not a place of slumber, but of conscious experience first developed in the inter-testamental period with the influence of Greek culture and philosophy upon Judaism. The apparent enigma of the righteous experiencing Sheol (Hades) along with the wicked was then tentatively resolved, in some but not all rabbinical circles, by compartmentalizing Sheol into two distinct regions. As The New International Dictionary Of New Testament Theology states, "With the infiltration of the Greek doctrine of immortality of the soul, paradise becomes the dwelling place of the righteous during the intermediate state." 4

In Jesus' day, the part of Hades where the righteous were detained was commonly referred to by the Pharisees as Abraham's Bosom. This was a place of rest and banqueting where the souls of the righteous enjoyed "intimate fellowship with the father of the race (Abraham), who is still alive and blessed in death." 5

PLACE OF TORMENT: While the righteous were segregated and awaiting redemption in a part of Sheol having paradisiacal dimensions, Pharisaic tradition consigned the wicked to an area of Sheol where punishments were applied commensurate with one's performance in life. 6  This traditional belief which similarly developed during the inter-testamental period is clearly documented in the Apocrypha (e.g. Judith 16:17) and the Pseudepigrapha (e.g. II Enoch 40:12). Jewish literature (i.e. religious folklore) circulating in the first century often graphically detailed the retributive misery of the dammed in Hades. For example, licentious men were spoken of as hanging by their genitals, women who suckled their young in public, as hanging by their breasts, and those who talked during synagogue prayers, as having their mouths filled with hot coals. 7

A point worthy of note here, is that when Jesus used the terms "Abraham's Bosom", and "Torment" in reference to Hades, he was employing terms and concepts not rooted in scripture, but in rabbinical tradition. He was using terms fully comprehended by the Pharisees and clearly endorsed by their teachings about the afterlife. And equally important, Abraham's Bosom, and Torment were terms the Pharisees used regularly to justify their total neglect of the poor.

HISTORICAL NOTE: That the view of hell depicted in Luke 16 was an integral part of first century Pharisaic tradition is nowhere more clearly delineated than in the following excerpt written by Josephus, (himself a Pharisee) to explain the Jewish concept of Hades to the Greeks.

Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region...allotted as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to everyone's behavior and manners... while the just shall obtain an incorruptible and never-fading kingdom. These are now indeed confined in Hades, but not in the same place wherein the unjust are confined. For there is one decent into this region...the just are guided to the right hand and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of good things they see, and rejoice in the expectation of those new enjoyments which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor any briers there; but the countenance of the Fathers and of the just, which they see always smiles upon them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

But as to the unjust, they are dragged by force to the left hand by the angels allotted for punishment, no longer going with a good-will, but as prisoners driven by violence... they are struck with a fearful expectation of a future judgment, and in effect punished thereby: and not only so, but where they see the place of the fathers and of the just, even hereby are they punished; for a chaos deep and large is fixed between them; insomuch that a just man that hath compassion upon them cannot be admitted, nor can one that is unjust, if he were bold enough to attempt it, pass over it. 8

Now assuming that justification for the Pharisee's indifference to the poor was drawn from their tradition and not from the scriptures, Jesus had a choice of doing one of two things to combat their rationale. He could either reason with the Pharisees from scripture to prove their tradition was unsound, or he could enter into their tradition with them, mimic it with mastery and expose its absurdity. Jesus chose the latter course because He knew that reasoning with the Pharisees would prove futile.

HOW DID THE PHARISEES AND OTHER TEACHERS OF THE LAW USE THEIR TRADITIONAL TEACHINGS TO JUSTIFY THE TOTAL ABDICATION OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE POOR (I.E. THEIR REFUSAL TO EVEN "LIFT A FINGER" TO ALLEVIATE THEIR BURDENS Lu. 11:46)? PERHAPS WE CAN GET SOME INSIGHT BY SPENDING A FEW MOMENTS LOOKING AT THE STORY ITSELF:

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS is a classic "reversal of fortune" story. Before death, the rich man was well off while Lazarus was in physical torments. But after death, it's Lazarus who is well off and the rich man is experiencing torment. Before death, Lazarus was begging crumbs from the rich man; now the rich man is begging droplets of relief from Lazarus.

THE KEY QUESTION: Why were their fortunes reversed? In other words, why did Lazarus end up in Abrahamic bliss and the rich man in torments?

What reason does the text give for the reversal in their fortunes? Let's examine verse 25, the punch line of this parody. You will recall that the rich man had just made a desperate plea for Lazarus to "lift a finger" to help relieve his misery. Jesus has a somewhat dispassionate Abraham respond to this appeal by dispensing some rather outrageous logic that completely ignores the moral dimension of either man's life.

25. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy life time receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Abraham paternalistically justifies the rich man's intolerable situation by reminding him of a simple rule of parity. To paraphrase here, Abraham says, "Don't you remember Son; it's those who experience bad things in this life that can expect good things in the next...". Now where in the world did such logic originate? Actually, the logic, originated with the Pharisees themselves. Jesus was merely having Abraham parrot back to the rich man, the Pharisee's own unhelpful counsel to the poor and tormented. Visualize for a moment, a Pharisee giving the following advice to a destitute widow who has just approached him for assistance.

Daughter, remember God punishes to the 3rd and 4th generation; Your present suffering is obviously His judgment. We would really like to help, but, as you know, it is God who has fixed this wide gulf of disparity between us - so that those who would traverse that gulf and ease your torment, even a little, only find themselves contravening His judgment. God is your help my daughter! If we      	help to alleviate your torment now, you will only experience much worse later. But if you faithfully bear His judgment for your sins and those of your fathers, and endure bad things in this life, you will surely enjoy the comforts of Abraham's Bosom in the hereafter.

JESUS HAD PIQUED THE PHARISEES INTEREST AS HE INTRODUCED THE STORY OF LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN. He talked about Lazarus' poverty and struggles, and in death, he had him carried off to Abraham's Bosom. You can imagine the Pharisees nodding their heads in agreement here. But what the Pharisees were not expecting, was having their own concept of "redemptive suffering" reversed and extended to its logical conclusion. "Bad now - Good later", then becomes, "Good now - Bad later". [Savor for one moment, the poetic justice of having Abraham, the ultimate Patriarch and religious authority, rationalizing the Pharisee's exclusion from the kingdom of God, by turning their own dispassionate logic back on them.] The twist in the rich man's fate sends the Pharisees reeling, and more so as they hear laughter swelling up from the crowd who were all too familiar with the Pharisee's self-justifying rhetoric.

The Rich Man and Lazarus then is a masterful expose of the Pharisees. Through satire, Jesus effectively strips the Pharisees of any pretence of righteousness and thoroughly discredits their justification for ignoring the poor in Israel. They are now left no cloak for their sins or their hardhearted refusal to repent. Their refusal to repent despite all God's blessings, instructions and possible miracles is the real point of this passage. And true to Abraham's prediction (verse 31), only weeks later, after Jesus actually raised one named Lazarus, the Pharisees simply react with vehement determination to put both Jesus and Lazarus to death. (Jn.11:47, 53)

BY WAY OF SUMMARY: When we examine Luke 16:19-31 in the light of history, we note a rather suspicious resemblance between Jesus’ story of  The Rich Man and Lazarus, and the traditional teachings of the Pharisees. But Jesus was not setting out to confirm Pharisaic beliefs about the afterlife. True, he told their story; the same story they had told a thousand times before, but with one important difference; a rather ironic twist you might say, that sees the Rich Man waking up in torment in Hades and being denied the slightest assistance by application of the same logic whereby he had regularly denied the poor and destitute. It would not take much imagination to visualize the headlines in the Jerusalem Chronicle the morning after Jesus told His version of their story, humorously conveying how the Lord had turned the tables on the Pharisees in the afterlife.

CLOSING COMMENT ON THIS PASSAGE: Satire is serious business. It is most effectively employed when reason is not welcome. Satire embraces irony, parody, condemnation and even ridicule. Because it is often biting, it should be used carefully; perhaps as a last resort. Satire entertains the ridiculous as a possibility - to highlight the incongruities of immoral or irrational positions. Satire however, is slippery footing for doctrine.

References:

1. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2. The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia 3. Vine's OT Dictionary 4. New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 5. Eldwell's Evangelical Dictionary 6. Eldwell's Evangelical Dictionary 7. Four Views on Hell: Crockett, William. Ed. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1992. p. 46 8.The Works of Flavius Josephus, William Whiston, A.M., Translator. Hartford Conn. The S.S. Scranton Co., 1900, pp. 901-902