Luke 16:19-31; The Power of Passivity II

Lazarus' passivity continues. He suffers from some kind of sores and rather than "taking the initiative" to bind himself up, he passively submits to the indignities of dogs lapping at the sores. This is not what we might call "licking the wounds," as if to make them better. It is as if the famished Lazarus is being feasted on by the wild dogs. He who wants food is now being set upon as if he is food. He who is thrown on the ground outside of the gate has to meekly wait for scraps to be thrown to him. The verbs in v. 21 are interesting. One is in the active--he desires--but what does he desire? The following infinitive is in the passive voice--he desires that he might be fed from the droppings of the table. Even his desire is curtailed by passivity.

But isn't this the reality of poverty in our world? Poverty may make one angry; it may "ennoble" in some way; but it often leads to immobility and passivity. Why? Because you are so hemmed in by your situation that you really can't actively do anything to change it. If you act too aggressively, you will be arrested, for we have rules against people being too aggressive if they have dirty clothes, diseases and don't look "professional." We have rules about panhandling, about approaching "normal-looking" people for help, for guidance, etc. It is worse if you have diseases which are easily noticed.

Last week I attended a seminar on poverty in America. The person who spoke was a Caucasian woman who had lived in poverty most of her life but had, unlike her five brothers, taken the education route to extricate herself from that endless cycle. What she said about the connection between poverty and physical/mental illness confirmed my anecdotal observations. That is, poverty and mental/physical illness seem to cluster with each other.

So it was with Lazarus. He was just dumped off at the gate of the rich person, with his unbandaged sores and his longing to be taken care of--to catch the droppings of the table, so to speak. This description reminds us of the prodigal's condition after he squandered all his wealth in loose living in a far country. He, too, was passively waiting to be fed (15:16--the same word combination as here).

But the theme of passivity begins now to shade off into another one--and that is the great gap between Lazarus and the rich man. At the beginning of the story this gap is emphasized by the "gate" which stands between the two (v. 20). Then, after they both die, they are transported to different locations in the afterlife, and there is a great gap between the rich man and Lazarus, who now reclines on Abraham's bosom (v. 23). Interestingly enough, the word makrothen, meaning "far off" is used in v. 23, almost identical to the makran of Luke 15:20. Then, in v. 26, Abraham, who now takes an active role in interpreting the parable, talks about an unbridgeable gap between the two people.

While the concept of gap between Lazarus and the rich man is an important literary development of the story, the reality of the gap between rich and poor is an observation worth commenting about. When asked last week about why she, the seminar leader, married into poverty (she was 15 and her husband--17 at the time--was from the same social stratum as she), she said that she did because the poor only hang out with other poor people. She even used the word "gap" to describe the social reality of rich and poor in our culture. Rich and poor live in parallel universes, crossing in each other's only occasionally and usually uncomfortably. They don't date each other, eat with each other, go to games with each other, entertain each other. Luke is simply reflecting one of the tough realities of the effect of wealth disparity--you only tend to hang out with people of similar economic means. Thus, let's read the parable not only as a nice story about missed opportunities to follow Jesus' central teaching but also as a commentary on the felt reality of poverty and wealth.

The Rich Man in Hell, and Finishing the Story

Are rich people more apt to bark orders and take the initiative because they are rich or do people, by barking orders and taking the iniative, tend to become rich? Or, is there no connection between the two? In this parable, in any case, the rich person keeps on giving orders after his death. He is in a hot place, and he still is giving orders. Note that Lazarus doesn't say a word, but the rich man does. As a matter of fact, he tries to show himself as a negotiator here, but his negotiation skills falter. He ignored the cardinal rule of negotiation: before entering into the dialogue make sure you have a position of strength. If you have no "leverage" as you enter into negotiation, people will just clobber you. Which is pretty much what happens here.

So, the rich man makes two requests. First, he wants Lazarus to dip his finger in the water and refresh him. He is still giving orders, even if he tries to minimize the effect of the request (he could say, 'I was only asking for a little help, just a cotton-pickin' dip of water. No one will get hurt, and I won't be exhausting the world's supply'). Indeed, he wants Abraham to send Lazarus to help him out. He goes right to the top. But notice the presumptuousness here. He addresses Abraham as "Father Abraham." That is the same title used by John the Baptist in 3:8 as an example of people's presumption. "Do not presume to say we have Abraham as our father..." That is the message of John the Baptist. Bring forth fruit of repentance and don't rely on your genetic connection with "the big guy."

Once this avenue fails, the rich man asks for a request that might be considered altruistic--to warn his brothers to avoid the same fate as he is experiencing. The verb used is an interesting one, for it is a common verb to describe the Christian mission in Luke and Acts. The verb (diamartureo), has the notion of "witness" built into it. When Abraham refuses his second request, we as perceptive readers are supposed to hear not only that the rich man is not going to be "saved," but that there will come a time when the Christian mission will turn from the evangelization of the Jews. Thus, Luke is cleverly inserting a word that will help explain a change in mission focus in the early Church from Jew to Gentile.

Conclusion

The parable ends in a rather haunting way. People who don't hear the prophets will not hear someone who comes back from the dead. Again, this is a verse with dual meanings--at the level of the parable and at the level of the early Christian mission.

Thus, though the parable explores a popular Lucan theme--the importance of caring for the "little people" in your midst--the dynamics of the tale pique our interest especially on the subject of wealth and poverty. In the final analysis, however, it is Lazarus, the one who never says a word and always is the passive recipient or expecter of things, who is lauded. How's that going to be received in our activist culture?

2906