I’ve been preparing a couple of sermons from Luke’s parables to finish our summer series at church. As I’ve been preparing on the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) I’ve been reminded that the parables are themselves a genre within a genre.
Fee and Stuart have some helpful points from their book ‘How to read the Bible for all its worth’. Here are some quotes at length:
‘… for all their charm and simplicity, the parables have suffered a fate of misinterpretation in the church second only to the Revelation.’ (p149)
That’s a bold claim. But the following kinda affirms this for me as Fee and Stuart list out that even with the parables there is a wide variety:
‘…not all the sayings we label as parables are of the same kind. There is a basic difference, for example, between the Good Samaritan (true parable) on the one hand and the Yeast in the Dough (similitude) on the other, and both of these differ from the saying, ‘You are the salt of the earth’ (metaphor), or, ‘Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles?’ (epigram). Yet all of these can be found from time to time in discussions of the parables.
‘The Good Samaritan is an example of a true parable. It is a story, pure and simple, with a beginning and an ending; it has something of a “plot.” Other such story parables include the Lost Sheep, the Prodigal Son, the Great Banquet, the Workers in the Vineyard, the Rich Man and Lazarus, and the Ten Virgins.
‘The Yeast in the Dough, on the other hand, is more of a similitude. What is said of the yeast, or the sower, or the mustard seed was always true of yeast, sowing, or mustard seeds. Such “parables” are more like illustrations taken from everyday life that Jesus used to make a point.
‘Such sayings as “you are the salt of the earth” differ from both of these. These are sometimes called parabolic sayings, but in reality they are metaphors and similes. At times they seem to function in a way similar to the similitude, but their point – their reason or being spoken – is considerably different.’ (p151-152)
So the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) is an example of a ‘true parable’ or ‘story parable’. So what are the defining marks of interpreting this parable?
- Identifying the Audience
- Finding the points of reference
- Recognise the unexpected turn
1. Identifying the Audience
It seems clear in 16:14 that the intended audience of this parable are the Pharisees. But there’s an addition to their description as, ‘lovers of money’ who on hearing the previous parable (the Parable of the Dishonest Manager) ridicule Jesus.
2. Finding the points of reference
What makes a joke work is that the audience understands the points of reference. If you need to explain the points of reference in a joke it loses a fair amount of its amusement. The same with the parables: if we don’t understand the points of reference we will lose its impacts.
Here are some points that I’ve noted:
- The rich man is a Jew – he recognises Abraham – and enjoys the high life. The connection between this rich man and the Pharisees Jesus is speaking to is fairly apparent.
- Despite his apparent uncleanliness (being licked by dogs), Lazarus still makes it to heaven. To paraphrase what a Pharisee might have made of this, “What the?!”
3. Recognise the unexpected turn
The audience of this parable are the wealthy Pharisees who were ridiculing Jesus. Wealth aside, as Pharisees we instantly recall their notorious legalism, their strict adherence to the Laws of Moses and the Prophets.
But this is the unexpected turn. Where they thought they were safe, Abraham says they are not. The Rich Man recognises that his brothers are in trouble (because they led a lifestyle like him?) and wants a messenger to go to them, to warn them. Abraham says, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’
This is the unexpected turn: Pharisees already have Moses and the Prophets! They already know what they should do in order to avoid Hades/Hell.
Sensing this, the Rich Man then makes another appeal: if someone from the dead were to warn his brothers, then they would believe! But Abraham then gives us the second unexpected turn: they will not be convinced [even] if someone should rise from the dead.
That’s the nature of hard heartedness and unbelief – it is not convinced to act even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Fee and Stuart continue:
How the Parables Function
The best clue as to what the parables are is to be found in the function. In contrast to most of the parabolic sayings, such as not reaping figs from thistles, the story parables do not serve to illustrate Jesus’ prosaic teaching with word pictures. Nor are they told to serve as vehicles for revealing truth – although they end up clearly doing that. Rather the story parables function as a means of calling forth a response on the part of the hearer. It is told to address and capture the hearers, to bring them up short about their own actions, or to cause them to respond in some way to Jesus and his ministry. (p152)
So the parable does not aim to teach us that those in Hell can see those in Heaven, nor does this parable necessarily teach that communication between Heaven and Hell is possible, or that all poor people go to heaven. Rather this parable’s primary aim is to call for a response – for the wealthy people of God to use their wealth to help the poor in obedience to God’s Word. Trying to draw implications from the details will miss the overall point and thrust of the parable.
That’s what I ran with last Sunday.