Pentecost 19 C: Eternal Life Now
A brief note: Pardon sharing this one again, Dear Partner. Time is/has been/will be short, and I’ve heard from a few of you that it’s hard to find earlier pieces, so I’ll repost the column of three years ago. For what it’s worth, I find this angle even more compelling three years later and back in the parish. I hope it’s helpful, and thank you for your good and faithful work!
Dear Partner in Preaching,
Do you ever wonder if Luke had ever heard about justification by grace? I mean, tradition tells us that he was a traveling companion of the Apostle Paul’s but, if so, it’s hard to know just how much of Paul’s theology rubbed off. On the one hand, you have the incredibly grace-filled parables of being lost and found in chapter 15, but then you get these far more difficult, even threatening parables about money and the consequences of misusing it the 16th chapter. But if last week’s parable was difficult because it was rather confusing, this week’s parable is difficult because it seems painfully clear: hoard wealth in this life and suffer the consequences in the next.
Or is it?
While there is absolutely no question that Luke was tremendously concerned with the proper use of wealth – both his Gospel and Acts have that as a major theme, offering manifold examples of both good and poor use of wealth – I’m not so sure he was trying to settle issues about the afterlife, let alone eternal punishment. This is a parable, after all, where metaphorical, exaggerated, even hyperbolic language is the norm. So I hesitate to draw any hard and fast – let alone literal – conclusions from it. (Interestingly, there is actually very little mention of Hades, Sheol, or hell in the NT anywhere other than in parables.) Further, I also hesitate to use this parable to establish the reality or character of hell because, quite interestingly, while the rich man has indeed experienced a profound reversal of fortune – a theme in Luke from the Magnificat in chapter 1 on – he is nevertheless referred to by Abraham as “child,” making it difficult to conclude that he has been utterly rejected.
So while I don’t think this passage is necessarily a rejection (or affirmation, for that matter!) of Paul’s understanding of justification by grace through faith, I also want to be clear that none of this tempers Luke’s counsel and concern regarding wealth. What it changes, perhaps, is the direction of Luke’s counsel. That is, what if this parable isn’t about the afterlife at all, but rather is about our lives right now?
Two things in particular persuade me to lean in this direction. First, the chasm that is fixed between the rich man and Lazarus isn’t, when you think about, new. Indeed, that chasm was fixed a long, long time ago and reinforced every time the rich man came and went into his sumptuous abode to feast at his rich table and ignored Lazarus. He obviously knew Lazarus was there and understood his plight, because he knows Lazarus by name. Yet he did nothing. Further, even in the afterlife the rich man continues to treat Lazarus as a non-entity, a servant who should fetch him some water or, failing that, be sent as a messenger to his brothers. In both his earthly life and in the life to come, the rich man refuses to see Lazarus as a person, a human, a fellow child of God, and so ignores him and his plight.
And seeing, in this Gospel, is a very big deal. Because before you can have compassion for people, you have to see them, acknowledging their presence, needs, and gifts and above all their status of children of God worthy of respect and dignity. This the rich man utterly fails to do. Which leads me to conclude that the chasm between them in this parabolic description of the afterlife is only a dramatization of the one that existed before, to the detriment of both, for no good comes from setting barriers between the children of God. And this may be Luke’s point all along, less warning us about punishment in the next life than urging us to the abundant life in this one that comes only in seeing those around us as God’s beloved children deserving our care, attention, and fellowship.
The climax of the parable reinforces a more “this-worldly” interpretation, as failing to summon Lazarus to bring him water, the rich man entreats Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers. Abraham’s response is interesting: they already have all the counsel they need in the law and prophets. But the rich man will not relent, arguing that testimony from beyond the grave will be more convincing. And Abraham’s answer to this is now not just interesting but striking: “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (16:31).
All of which convinces me that the unrepentant but chastened rich man is not truly the subject of this parable at all. We are. We are those who, along with the community for whom Luke originally wrote, know the resurrected Lord. We are the ones who have the law and the prophets and have seen God’s compassion embodied in the life and ministry of Jesus. We are the ones who gather each week to celebrate his victory over the grave, forgiveness of sin, and the possibility of living in light of God’s grace, mercy, and abundance. We are those who follow the crucified and Risen Lord.
All of which brings me to what I think is Luke’s central question: So…is Abraham right? Does any of this make a difference? Does our faith in and experience of the Risen Lord help us see those we would prefer not to see and regard those around us as worthy of compassion, respect, and honor…or not? Does the testimony of the One who has conquered death and called us to follow him make a difference?
Just to be clear: I don’t think Luke is saying that how we answer this question will determine our eternal destiny. I think he is more interested in whether it shapes our life right now. Because Luke knows that we simply cannot live into the abundant life God offers us here and now alone. Abundant life comes via community, when we see those around us as gifts of God and experience the blessing of sharing what we have with others. There’s a reason generous people are happier than stingy ones – God created us to be in relationship with those around us and we experience the fullness of the life God intends and offers only when we embrace the people God has set in our path.
This parable, Dear Partner, isn’t about earning or relinquishing an eternal reward; it’s about the character and quality of our life right now. One might even argue that for Luke eternal life isn’t a distant reality at all but rather starts now, each time we embrace the abundant life God offers in and through those around us. So while it is certainly a warning not to overlook those around us in need, it is also an invitation to live into fuller, more meaningful, and more joyous life by sharing ourselves – our time, talents, and certainly our wealth – with those around us here and now. For as we do, we live into the life and kingdom God outlines in the law of Moses, clarifies in the prophets, and makes manifest and available to all in the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord.
Thanks for sharing this important word, Dear Partner, for on this day, you offer the testimony of One who indeed has risen from the grave, and that word is both needful and powerful. Blessings on your proclamation.
Yours in Christ,
David
I can’t wait for Advent. Matthew also talks about how strenuous God’s Law is, but in a way I can relate to much better than Luke. Preaching these lessons is tough; on Sunday as a parishioner was leaving, he said, I understand what you said but I still don’t like these lessons. I sympathize.
What They Took With Them might be this week’ sermon. And it is not a parable.
Um, yes it is a parable
A non-clergy person, I deeply appreciate and agree with the above perspective. Refreshing! As a 72 year old the development of more unanswerable questions occurs. I don’t even know where to start, but here is one: Why did God make Man one way and has been trying to change Him ever since? The continued huge gap between world reality and (2,000+ year old) intentions of love and care weighs in so heavily. With the shrinking world I believe we are making progress but my goodness–the suffering where it appears we aren’t….
Great question without an easy answer, and the chasm seems so wide in our world is it possible to cross. My belief about God’s creativity within us is not God is trying to change us into someone or something else but God is calling us to live fully into who we are created to be, created for community and love. When we see it in ourselves the possibilities of God then perhaps we can begin to see them in our neighbor. Thanks William
David,
Love your insight about seeing I, thus the following commentary and poem:
The prophetic imagination of Jesus tells a tale about God’s kind of justice. We should not be surprised since Luke begins his Gospel with Mary’s Magnificant.
‘The rich will be sent empty away.’ The Kingdom of God turns things upside down and calls us to open our eyes and see. Can the Church see through the eyes of Jesus and see how God sees this world?
Out of sight
out of mind
the Lazarus
of our time.
Unseen,
unheard,
seldom,
if ever, a word.
Passed by,
at our feet,
everyday people
we could greet:
the lonely child
walking the street,
the silent senior
sad and meek.
Then the Lazarus
who is found
on a beach
of Syrian sand.
And one child
calls to mind
300,000 that
we are blind;
unable to see
atrocities
we repeat
and with disdain
we prevent
Lazarus, the immigrant,
from out tables
rich with food.
Hades will disclose,
dear friends,
their plight
in the end.
Justice to the least
will come and
God will welcome
all of them home.
Copyright @ A Poem a Sunday
May be used with permission
kennstorck@gmail.com
Could I use this poem in my sermon?? Glad to give full credit! It is wonderful!!!
Sue Lynn White
David’s awareness of seeing is valuable if seeing is acknowledging the reality of what is there. Kenneth, although I can appreciate your poetic use of “blind”, as a blind person I am offended. Using the word “see” is not a problem for me. To be blind is to not be able to see it is not ignoring, being unaware of or failing to see what is visible if one would just look and pay attention.
I agree with you that the parable isn’t about the nature of eternal reward or punishment, but about the chasm that exists between the rich and the poor now. We cannot see the one who is hungry, much less feed that person, without the compassion of God in our hearts. The church should surely lead the way in reaching out to those in need, but God will use whoever is available at the time.
David, Thank you for your insightful commentary. Not only on this passage. “In the meantime …” is so valuable to us who strive to put forth a meaningful message on Sundays.
I just finished reading “The Greening of the Self” by Joanna Macy. She stated that creation care does not occur so much from a moral obligation. Rather, we are motivated when we understand that creation is part of us. To take care of creation is to take care of ourselves. Perhaps the broadening of the self is what this parable is also getting at.
Good and interesting discussion.
When I last preached this text six years ago i said
Not everyone believes this is is a parable — (i do but)
two giants of the church, (your tradition’s) Martin Luther and (my tradition’s) John Wesley, both believed it was not a parable.
I haven’t checked my sourcing yet but it was probably one of the better commentaries on Luke (Joel Green or Tannehill or less likely Barclay) i use most…
Any insights on that history and the theo moves behind it would be appreciated!
Similarly, though I took church history with a good Lutheran professor Carter Lindbergh, who was a hardcore Luther lover, I don’t know Luther’s theology of law-gospels well enough to guess how he would reconcile the closing lines of this story (parable or not — and i sure hope it is…)
Thanks in advance for any good answers.
I remember reading a volume of literary authors comments book by book on scripture (taht i cant find on the shelf to give the name but0 Jewish author of comments on Galatians concluded by saying this story Jesus tells us is the only verse that saves the New Testament for him even a little…
Blessings come in strange packages sometimes.
Also
sorry, apologies to Luther — finding no support for my previous allegation that he viewed this story as fact, not parable. Can’t retrace where i got that from. Public apology for public error.
Did affirm via Wesley’s NT Notes — John Wesley does treat the story as actual, true to life. With the rich man probably an actual Pharisee.
The struggle with the ‘justification by grace through faith’ category may be a reflection of the difficulty of trusting that grace is actually the center of life. We trust in what we can control, what makes us safe, what relieves us of discomfort and guilt, and justifies our actions by rationalizing them – ‘We can’t take care of everyone’ – so we stop thinking about children in cages. We are seduced by other gods, and we cover it up by shifting the symbols of grace into their representation. We become justified by loving family, being nice, being ‘patriotic.’