In exchange, he was supposed to play a role, which he did not fulfill. During Lazarus’ lifetime, the rich man’s power was absolute and unquestioned he had authority. The dynamics of power now come into focus. This is contrasted with Lazarus, who had gone to be with Abraham. The interrupted association of wealth and virtue gets particularly vivid in verse 23, as the parable states directly that the rich man has gone to Hades after his death. Those waiting benches are still present in the excavated site of Pompeii outside the large homes of the wealthy, a reminder of the established practice and the rich man’s neglect. Scraps and leftovers from the sumptuous feasting would have made all the difference. Further, verse 21 makes clear that Lazarus is not asking for much. And, as verse 19 says, this particular rich man feasted every day, meaning Lazarus was denied many times as the rich man repeatedly ignored the unwritten codes of honor. A beggar who sat on this bench at the gate could expect some sort of attention, especially from a feasting host and guests. ![]() Often there was a bench outside homes where the poor could wait for assistance. Even if it was largely self-serving, patronage was an expected means for some of the poor to be fed while the wealthy reinforced their status with virtuous action. It was part of the role of the wealthy in the ancient world to provide alms for the poor in their community. The text does not say if the rich man’s cruelty toward Lazarus is intentional or not neither is particularly defensible. Humanizing Lazarus with a name draws more attention to the inhumane way he is treated by the rich man. But the rich man and his actions are still the focal point of the story. The fact that the poor man is named, and the rich man is not, is an interesting reversal. The rich man, who is not named here, overlooks Lazarus who sits with his sores at the rich man’s gate. The idea that the rich man is a good man is directly challenged by Jesus’ parable. ![]() ![]() In the ancient world, concepts like wealth, virtue, and masculinity worked together and reinforced one another to solidify elite status. Good people who work hard and live righteously can expect to be rewarded with means likewise, people with means are seen as good (smart, hardworking, righteous) because they were able to acquire wealth. ![]() It is common to equate wealth with virtue, whether today or in the ancient world. Jesus’ follow-up response to the Pharisees includes the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. This, too, elicits criticism from the Pharisees, who are identified in verse 14 as “lovers of money,” a label linking them to Jesus’ words in verse 14 about serving two masters. Chapter 16 shifts Jesus’ audience to the disciples, his followers and potential coworkers, and he tells them the parable of the dishonest steward. This text follows the parables in Chapter 15 of the lost sheep, coin, and son, which are addressed to the Pharisees and scribes in response to their grumbling about Jesus’ choice of company: tax collectors and sinners. The opening verse of this pericope, 16:19, has the same phrase as 16:1, the opening of last week’s text “There was a rich man …” The repetition of the phrase, in a Gospel full of references to wealth and its use, suggests engagement with this figure is important for faithful proclamation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |