Luke 16:14-31 The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

 It is important to notice that in this passage Jesus is no longer talking to his disciples. The previous parable of the Unjust Manager (Lk 16:1-13) was directed to his disciples. In that parable he says to his disciples that we should use mammon shrewdly to gain entry to the eternal homes. And Jesus finishes that sequence with the warning that we cannot serve two masters. (Lk 16:13) Let’s make God the unifying heart of our lives! That Jesus teaches his disciples this means that he knows his disciples don’t have unified hearts. Our hearts are divided and distracted by many things. And the antidote to this idolatry is to follow Jesus. We don’t follow Jesus because God’s love lives in us without competitors; we are disciples so that through following Jesus our hearts will come to love God alone, and all else through and because of this love.

And then, immediately after that parable and its teaching, from 16:14 onward, we are told that the Pharisees – “who were lovers of money” - ridiculed Jesus. But Jesus sees their hypocrisy. Their hearts do not match their outward piety, and they justify themselves in the sight of others. But God does not love outward show, but it is the heart, and the true heart, that God desires in us. Jesus tells them that the law is to be fulfilled, and not ignored or only acknowledged by outward behaviour. (16:16-18)

Then – and Jesus is still addressing the Pharisees not his disciples – he tells this parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. It means something that the text deliberately has Jesus tell this parable to those who are lovers of money and will kill him, and not directly to his disciples.

But what does it mean? Sometimes, it is easier to say what a passage doesn’t mean before we turn to what it means. This is one of those passages. Here are some thoughts on what this passage does not mean.

• It does not follow from this parable that wealth is evil. It is not wealth that is the problem. On the contrary, wealth is a blessing from God. The problem is that we make wealth into mammon.
   
• It does not follow from this parable that we should feel guilty about wealth. The presence of poverty does not mean that wealth is morally wrong.
  
  
• And it does not follow from this parable that the presence of poverty means that the disciples of Jesus must universally be without wealth.

It does follow from this parable that the Pharisees, as opponents of Jesus, and who were lovers of money and hypocrites, rejected the law and the prophets and neglected their duty to the poor. So, just as in the parable, the rich man’s rejection of his duties to the poor and his rejection of the law and the prophets resulted in his rejection in the post-mortem reversal, so too the Pharisees are rejected. So, the parable is a parable of condemnation and rejection of the rich man and therefore (because the parable is directed to them) of the Pharisees. But the parable also points to the larger story of the gospel. The Pharisees reject Jesus in his ministry, preferring their vanity and love of money, and refuse to hear the call of God. And this rejection of Jesus will result in his crucifixion, and when he returns from the dead they will still reject him and his message! (Lk 16:31)

But is that all we are to make of this parable? No. Like any other parable of condemnation there is a message for everyone, whether disciple or not. In the previous parable of the Unjust Manager, the disciples were told to use their wealth to be welcomed into the eternal homes. (Lk 16:9) It is the divided human heart, the heart that prefers competitors to God, that is to be combatted by a generosity of giving and living. And Jesus then tells us that we cannot serve two masters. We are to serve God alone. (See also Lk 4:8 for an account of Jesus rejecting this temptation.) That Jesus teaches the danger of a divided heart to his disciples means that he knows his disciples have divided hearts. (Otherwise, why bother telling us this?) It is in the following of Jesus that our hearts will be purified. If our hearts become more and more divided, and gradually turn more and more to God’s competitors like mammon, then we will lose our discipleship. We will end up loving a competitor to God, not God. And that is the warning for all disciples in this parable and teaching (Lk 16:14-31), even though it is directed at the opponents of Jesus. The end point of the unhealed human heart is rejection of Jesus, and our rejection according to the parable.

(And remember, the full sweep of the good news of Jesus is for all people, even those who have rejected Jesus.)

The Kingdom of God is Like a Weed

 Jesus likens the kingdom to a weed. (The mustard seed grows into a weed.) So the kingdom isn't the project you are doing in the shed, it is to be found behind the shed in the unkempt part of the yard not usually visible from where all the action is happening. That's funny. It must have provoked at least a little snigger amongst some, while others may have been a little offended.

These days it is difficult to find someone in the church who doesn't recognise the danger of identifying our pet projects with the kingdom. We know that when we give our hearts to pet projects (that is, the pet project becomes an idol, displacing the kingdom from its place of honour in our hearts), all kinds of problems and disasters occur. Idols always distort those who worship the idol and the outcomes. 

If avoiding making our pet projects into idols were as easy to say as do, I suppose human history would look significantly different to what it actually does. And this isn't just for religious people. Pet projects become ideologies, driving adherents to say and do all sorts of crazy stuff. Like any idol.

And this is why the parable of the mustard seed is so helpful. It's a warning against pet projects. Even when we think the pet project is the kingdom. Even when the pet project begins in kingdom-type activity. It's just too easy to equate what we are doing and thinking with the kingdom. We all decry the empire-building of yesteryear but are happy enough to think that when we act justly or evangelise (or whatever it is your church tradition values in particular) that we are doing God's work. Well, yes, possibly. But it is a slippery slope, and is why history looks like it does.

I could just say, let's hang loose people. Let's not invest too much in our pet projects. But how to give (of self) genuinely and hang loose? How to avoid becoming tepid? (Neither hot nor cold, see Revelation 3:16.) Well, keep looking behind the shed. That's the point of the parable, or at least part of it. Keep looking behind the shed. And when we do, and we see the weeds growing, let the weeds take your interest for a while. We can divide our attention, which is a good, practical way to get our hearts off the pet project and (at least potential) idol in the shed. God is doing all kinds of stuff, not just our pet project. It might be time to move on from the pet project. The kingdom requires nimbleness.

Here is a parallel from the Christian tradition. People hunger for spiritual experiences. Christians have always hungered for spiritual experiences, and when an 'experience' is granted, hang on to the experience. And not just Christians, it seems that many contemporary people are hungering for 'spiritual' experiences, although who knows exactly what the world thinks it means by 'spiritual'. Anyway, the advice from the Christian tradition is not to hang onto the experience. The experience may well be helpful, but hang onto it and it will become less and less helpful until it has the opposite effect. Kind of like how the pet project can become an idol. The advice is to just go back to praying, like normal, and leave behind the experience. The experience has done what it was meant to do. Move on. And that is part of the problem with seeking a  'spiritual experience', it feels like it is helping us grow, but it will actually stop us from moving and growing in a relatively short space of time.

Or another parallel. In the Christian tradition, God is more unlike than like any image or thought we have of God. Words and images have the tendency to become replacements for God, that is, idols. Or, less dramatic, prevent us from continuing our journey into and with God. We get stuck. Just like spiritual experiences, we can get stuck. Just like pet projects. We can get stuck. The kingdom is moving on, let's keep looking, moving, joining, looking, moving ...

Jonah, Resentment, Idolatry

There is a lot to say about the book of Jonah. After all, people write good commentaries on the book even though it is only a few pages long. The book begins with Jonah fleeing from God because God wants him to go to Nineveh and warn the city of impending destruction. He eventually goes to Nineveh after a short sojourn in the belly of the great fish, and calls the people to repentance. He doesn't try too hard. (See 3:3-4) But it works; the people repent, much to the chagrin of Jonah.  After the people of Nineveh repent and God relents from destroying the city, Jonah is displeased. He complains to God,

Is not this what I said while I was still in my own country? That is why I fled to Tarshish at the beginning; for I knew that you are a gracious God and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, and ready to relent from punishing." (4:2)

It's tough when you are the last one to repent. It's a bit lonely I suppose. The Ninevites repent, and even God relents, that is, changes God's mind, which is a kind of repentance. But Jonah can't relent in his judgmentalism. And he is angry.  So God tries to show him why God has relented. God brings a little bush up and then has it die. (4:6-8) Jonah is upset again, this time about the bush. And God says, in a way similar when Jonah was angry about Nineveh's escape from destruction, "Is it right for you to be angry about the bush?" (4:9, cf 4:4)

Idolatry is always hard to give up. That's why the 'idol' (see here) became an idol in the first place. Jonah has a set idea of God fuelled by his judgmentalism, anger, self-righteousness or similar. And not even God's enacted parable with the bush and explanation following, can change him. Well, actually, we don't know. The story ends without us knowing Jonah's response to God's explanation of God's mercy to the Ninevites. The book closes open-ended, functioning as an invitation to us to repent of hardness of heart, directed at others (and by implication ourselves). 

Idolatry

Whatever we adopt and assert as the ultimate controlling factor in our lives is our god. We do not need to love it and worship it. We can even fear it or hate it. But in our religion we try to control it. (KarlBarthfor Dummies)

Incomprehensibility and the Image of God

In theory, could human beings come to know everything about the universe? Putting aside the kind of human arrogance that thinks all is possible because they think they are God, is it at least theoretically possible to know and understand, to comprehend, the universe?

It’s too big. OK, agreed, probably a bit big. But, in theory, what would be encountered on the other side of the universe, could such phenomena be investigated and understood?

No, it is too complex. OK, but if we did have the right tools and equipment, the right technology, would it be possible? In theory, yes. Our intelligence seems mapped to understanding the reality around us. (If it were not so, it would be difficult to understand how and why the Western scientific method has been so successful.

And then, there is mystery. Mystery, in the Christian schema, is not the currently unknown, but that could be known under the right circumstances. In Christianity, mystery refers to the incomprehensible, beyond our understanding, even in theory. We can’t slice mystery into manageable bits, and we can’t wrestle it into shape and compare it to what we do know to therefore grasp it, at least partially. I’m talking about God. God can reveal Godself, in all God’s glorious incomprehension. God can become human in Jesus, but that does not mean we comprehend God. Jesus reveals the incomprehensible God, who remains incomprehensible. That is, God is not our plaything, and cannot be put to our use as we do with everything else we understand (even partially understand). When people of faith try to control God terrible consequences follow. Hence, the prohibition against idols and misusing God’s name embedded in the Ten Commandments.

And we are made in the image of this incomprehensible God. Attempts to identify the image in us with certain attributes or capacities abound. And whatever the benefits of such approaches, we should never think that somehow, we have made the image comprehensible. That would be to break the second commandment. Reductionism has its place in the study of our humanity, but the irreducible remains. Kathryn Tanner sees an imitation of God’s incomprehensibility in the plasticity of our nature. In comparison to other species, we are born with little hard wired in us. We grow, learn, change, exponentially so. Our nature is “in a sense unlimited, unbounded by a clearly delimited nature, in virtue, in the human case, of an expansive openness and initial indefiniteness.” This natural openness is a negative imitation in that God’s incomprehensibility is from complete fullness, whereas our imitation is a “lack, through an initial failure of predetermination, not by being anything in particular in any very concrete way to start.” (Christ the Key, p. 53)

If God is beyond our understanding, incomprehensible, what is an appropriate response to God? Awe, joy, bliss. Prayer, thanksgiving, faith.

Idolatry and Purity

Recently, on ABC Adelaide radio, prominent educationalist and author Kevin Donnelly was cut mid-stream from the broadcast for referring to or quoting from, Mark Twain. (Ironically Donnelly was being interviewed about his latest book on free speech in education!) I'm sure the purists of the ABC were satisfied. 

Purity and extremism often follow one another. Purity is important in a recent Sunday reading today. (Exodus 32:1-14.) The people of Israel make for themselves an idol, a golden calf.  When it comes to sins, it doesn't get much worse than idolatry. Idolatry is held execrable because, among other reasons, it leads to all kinds of inhumanity. The worst idolatry is to substitute ourselves for God, rather than maintain ourselves as made in God's image. This was Solzhenitsyn's criticism of the monstrous history of the Bolsheviks, and more and more the modern world. In response to the danger of idolatry, Christianity has sought to overturn idolatry wherever it is found. But while this pursuit is pure, purity, as I said, often leads to extremism. Purity has no grace, and no place for failure, or the sinner. And it easily becomes an idol.

It is ironic that the quest to prevent idolatry ends in all kinds of inhumanities. Purity makes new victims in its efforts to prevent the impurity. But let us not restrict such puritanical pursuits to Christianity or religion in general. It seems to be a general characteristic of human beings. Think of all the great movements of purity from the French Revolution through to the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, and Pol Pot. Good atheists the lot of them.

Irony abounds. The ranks of the new puritans in the West (including in the Church) are to be found in those who would claim to be dismantling old oppressive systems of purity or preventing their re-emergence. 

So, what is the antidote to idolatry? As I have said before, Christian faith does not develop by just trying harder. Purifying oneself of any skerrick of idolatry may have the opposite effect than the one desired. (By making an idol out of the pursuit of purity.)

Better to love God. Practice loving God, even if it comes hard, or we are imperfect in it. It is love that overcomes idolatry, not purity.