Negative Argument
In my prior post I made a positive argument for a literal setting of the parable. In this post I’ll offer a negative argument–that is, I’ll respond to competing views.
My compliments to Rajesh for presenting a thoughtful opposing argument here.
–
Extended & Dropped Arguments
In my original argument I defended 2 principal contentions:
- An inductive argument for a literal setting, derived from other
parables recorded by the same author
- An appeal to the understanding repeatedly upheld by early Christian
leaders
Argument 2 was dropped in Rajesh’s post, no substantial counter was offered. I’ll offer a brief response to critiques of argument 2 that have surfaced in the comments, and then focus on the principal contention of Rajesh’s post, employed against argument 1.
–
Why We Cannot Reject the Ante-Nicene Fathers
As SpiritRealmInvestigator noted here:
In the context of related debates such as … [a variety of theological
topics listed]...I think it would be quite helpful to know the views
held by the Apostolic Fathers, as they had the unique privilege of
receiving direct or almost direct teaching from the Apostles
themselves.
That at least some Biblical teachings can lead to more than one well-argued interpretation is demonstrated immeasurably well by this site. I agree that there is value in understanding what early Christian leaders understood–especially considering that it is on their authority that the New Testament was compiled & delimited.
This is not to argue for Patristic inerrancy–they in fact disagreed with each other all the time–but to highlight how singularly significant it is when a supermajority of Ante-Nicene fathers agree on something! Their trust in and usage of the 27 books of the New Testament we have today is the reason these books–and only these books–were repeatedly ratified in the 4th century and later (e.g. Athanasius, Synod of Hippo, etc).
To accept their authority (when nearly unanimous) regarding the contents of the New Testament but to reject their authority (when nearly unanimous) regarding the afterlife is contradictory. There are 2 approaches that permit logical consistency:
- Reject both the New Testament and the early Patristic statements on
the afterlife
- Accept both the New Testament and the aforementioned early Patristic
statements as well-attested and more likely than not to be accurate
Note that I’m only making this argument on matters where there is broad agreement among the Ante-Nicene fathers–there are many topics where they obviously did not see eye to eye and this argument would not apply.
Even the original apostles did not always agree with each other (see Galatians 2), but where they unambiguously hold a consistent position (such as the reality of Jesus’ resurrection), there’s little ground to stand on to try to disagree with them. If Peter & Paul agree on something, that’s pretty solid ground. What about their disciples?
Irenaeus of Lyons & Clement of Alexandria were contemporaries, living on opposite corners of the Mediterranean in the late 2nd century. Irenaeus was from a region where Christianity was planted by Paul (and doubtless influenced by John); Clement was from a region where Christianity was planted by a disciple of Peter (see here). Irenaeus & Clement represent very different strands of Christian thought and their theologies don’t always align (Clement in particular is interesting for his willingness to talk about things Irenaeus doesn’t dare touch).
A useful rule of thumb: when Irenaeus of Lyons & Clement of Alexandria agree on something we have particularly solid attestation. In my original post I cited both Irenaeus & Clement in favor of post-mortal consciousness.
–
Satire
I am willing to grant for sake of argument the plausibility of Jesus employing satire in His teaching (though I would not grant it was one of His principal methods).
I will note, however, that satire is most effective when it is tied to reality (e.g. when the Onion or the Babylon Bee runs a news story about something you’ve never heard of, it isn’t funny. Whereas, if you know the real story that is being parodied, it may be funny…or offensive…but either way, it’s meaningful)
This is exemplified by one of the modern masters of satire, Mark Twain. His classic Huckleberry Finn is a satire of the post-bellum US South. His criticisms are so trenchant & piercing because what he’s describing is not the way people think things are or wish things were, but the way they really are.
–
The Parable of the Unjust Steward
Rajesh proposes that this parable is intended as satire, setting the stage for proposing that a subsequent parable in the chapter is satire as well. I propose 3 difficulties here:
If a pericope (“story”) adjacent to a satire is also satire, does that make the Prodigal Son satire? There were no chapter breaks when the Gospel of Luke was written.
This parable and the parable of the rich man and Lazarus are not adjacent pericopes. I suggest Jesus’ comments on divorce, found between the stories, are not satire, especially when compared to parallel Gospel accounts on divorce.
I am not persuaded that this parable is clearly intended as satire. It is an inventive suggestion, but for competing interpretations of this parable, see here and here. Jesus telling someone to do something bad to get laughs would be…quite unusual (and the proposal is somewhat ad-hoc).
–
Luke’s audience
Further complicating the rich man and Lazarus-as-satire proposal is that it’s in the Gospel of Luke, not Matthew.
Matthew’s Gospel was written to Jews familiar with the Pharisees and their customs. Luke’s Gospel is written to Gentiles (see my work on this subject here). Even if the story had originally been told as satire, it would not fit as such in the Gospel of Luke.
As noted above, satire works when the audience is familiar with what is being satirized–the Greco-Roman audience to whom Luke is writing would be even more confused by a Jewish Sheol satire than the original audience was! If, as my disputant suggests the, Greek influence of the time led people to adopt a view on Hades that contradicts the Jewish beliefs about Sheol, Luke’s inclusion of this parable was blatantly misleading.
They cannot be expected to understand the subtle nuance of Pharisaic false-doctrine, let alone the point the story is making (if it’s satire). Whereas, if the story is–as I’ve claimed above–a fictional account in a real setting, this difficulty is largely ameliorated.
Luke was written as an evangelizing (and/or apologetic) text, not as a live-stream video–if a story would be confusing or irrelevant to his audience, Luke didn’t have to include it (as evidenced by the vast quantity of Jewish material found in Matthew but not in Luke).
Though the satire argument might work if the parable were found in Matthew–written to an audience who would understand the satirical point–this would be at best out-of-step and at worst downright deceptive to Luke’s audience. As demonstrated in Patristic citations in my prior post, if the setting of the parable is not reality, the parable was indeed grossly misleading to generations of Christians who clearly missed the point.
–
Abraham’s statement
My inductive argument allowed specific exclusions for the individual people, and their individual actions & words–thus, to defend the inductive argument there is no need to explain Abraham’s words.
That said, it is not challenging to infer what is intended here–there’s a rich man eating really well, and a poor, sick man begging outside, and the best he gets are crumbs. The rich man makes no effort to make the poor man’s life better, and doesn’t even offer him protection from animals that seem keen to exacerbate his infection. That failure to extend charity has consequences in the afterlife.
My disputant suggests nowhere in scripture is this concept taught. The idea that there will be blessings for serving the poor and punishments for withholding aid is found in Matthew 25:
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye
gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye
clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye
came unto me.
…
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my
brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me,
ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye
gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me
not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
--
Absence of contradiction
Even if I were to grant that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was intended as a parody (I do not), it does not contradict the fundamental contention I make in argument 1: all of Jesus’ other parables–including the unjust steward–are set in reality.
If we adopt the premise:
- Satire => fictional setting (if satire then fictional setting)
The very argument made for satire would have to claim that the parable of the unjust steward is in a fictional setting. I contend there is nothing in this parable to support that view. The analysis conducted in my original post for the Good Samaritan & the Prodigal Son can be employed to the same effect for the parable of the unjust steward.
Furthermore, no counterexample to my inductive argument has been provided.
It is therefore possible for my inductive argument for a real setting & Rajesh’s argument for witty satire to both be true (this doesn’t mean they are, it just means one does not disprove the other).
–
Other arguments for a setting outside reality
Some would have an entire theology be constructed using this one passage. I have not done this. One example (of many) here.
A passage that is only 12 verses long. Can all doctrines attested by 12 or fewer verses be rejected? (Aside: the parable under consideration is 13 verses long)
Terms…and concepts…entirely unheard of in the rest of the Bible! All hapax legomenon, outside of their single occurrence, are unheard of in the rest of the Bible.
If this parable is understood literally, are we to interpret all parables literally? I have not argued for interpreting this parable literally; I have argued that it is set in reality–my inductive arguments highlights the features of Jesus’ parables that are to be found in reality, and those that are candidates for allegory. Parables told by other individuals would have to be analyzed on their own merits.
Will it really be possible for the suffering of those in hell to be relieved by a single drop of water? Note that this is a desperate belief held by the rich man, but is never attempted nor acknowledged as true.
Are heaven and hell so close that it is possible to have a conversation between the inhabitants of each despite the chasm between? Will the bliss of heaven be somehow enhanced by the spectacle of a numberless mass writhing in agony? I do not argue that the conversations are historical or literal, but that the setting of the story is reality.
How can physical pain be inflicted on a spirit/soul without a body? This was addressed by Tertullian 1800 years ago (see prior post)
Gehenna is the place of fiery destruction. Indeed it is (though we may differ on the meaning of “destruction”). The presence of fiery torment in one place does not eliminate the possibility of fiery torment in another. Many of the trials humans endure in this life are to them as “fiery torments.” Contemporary Jewish beliefs about Sheol held that the "wicked" section of Sheol was not a pleasant place (see also Patristic quotes in my prior post).
A literal interpretation of this parable would have people receive their reward immediately at death. A division in Sheol between righteous and wicked does not imply that final judgement has been made or that final rewards have been given. Sheol was an intermediate step. God gives many intermediary blessings/punishments--in fact all blessings & punishments in this life are intermediary if there is an afterlife.
It is impossible to ground the proof of an important doctrine on a passage which confessedly abounds in Jewish metaphor. All Biblical doctrines are grounded in a set of texts that abound Jewish metaphor: the Bible
–
Occam’s razor
My compliments to Rajesh for an accurate description of Occam’s razor! (a concept that is often misrepresented)
Rajesh acknowledges here that the passages for Christian mortalism in the Psalms are at least somewhat ambiguous:
David(and others inspired by God to write Psalms), had a much clearer
picture of the state of the dead; I cannot say for sure if he knew
that they were fully unconscious/unaware. Perhaps, perhaps not.
But follows it up with certainty obtained through Ecclesiastes 9. In another post I argue that Ecclesiastes 9 does not support Christian mortalism but rather is focused on events “under the sun”, which refers to the things of this life. Therein I also offer a reductio ad absurdum that if Ecclesiastes 9 is used to argue for Christian mortalism, it could be used to deny the resurrection just as well.
- My counterargument on Ecclesiastes 9 here
- My counterargument on Psalm 146 here
- A review of approx. 50 other passages sometimes employed to argue for
Christian mortalism in the appendix here
If, as demonstrated in the above-linked posts, Biblical passages used to argue for Christian mortalism are subject to straightforward, alternate interpretation, Occam’s Razor will not favor one position or the other in this debate–both must posit entities/interpretations from a variety of Biblical texts.
I further propose that Jesus’ deliberate teaching of false doctrine, and meticulous Luke’s decision to include it in a Gospel written to an audience that would be decidedly misled by it, are substantial assumptions that are disfavored by Occam’s Razor.
Finally, assuming early, well-informed Patristic writers located in Rome, Gaul, Slovenia, Alexandria, Carthage, and Palestine, diverse in time, space, and thought, are all flat-out wrong–this multiplies assumptions considerably.
–
Conclusion
I appreciate respectful debate and dialogue and am grateful for the thoughtful exchange of views here.
I submit that the 2 basic contentions presented in my prior post–in favor of a literal setting for the parable of the rich man & Lazarus–can explain the textual & historical evidence better than can competing hypotheses.
