Paradise or Heaven? question 228
Here’s another one where the comments section might have more information than I can come up with here!
In Luke 16, Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. How literally are we to take this description of heaven? I believe that the main point of the parable is clear in verse 25 and in 31. But I’ve seen a lot of discussion about the nature of heaven and hell taken from this parable.
In my religious tribe, this story is most often used to illustrate the existence of a place that serves as a waiting place between this life and heaven/hell. Back in the days of chart sermons (for the uninitiated, chart sermons were sermons drawn on a bedsheet and hung up at the front of the auditorium. The minister would whack appropriate sections with a stick to show you how he was working through the presentation. Think of it as Powerpoint-Unplugged), a circle would be drawn with the top section representing Paradise, the bottom section, Tartarus, with a middle section labeled “Great Gulf.” The story was told that righteous people went to Paradise — “the waiting place for the dead in Christ” — and evil people went to Tartarus — a place of torment. When those in torment ask for help from those in Paradise, they are told that none will be coming because, even if they wanted to help, they couldn’t cross that great gulf.
There are several fascinating aspects to this story. First, there is no indication that it is a parable. Jesus doesn’t say it’s one nor do the Gospel writers; he just says “there was a man named Lazarus.” Second, the point of the story isn’t an after-life geography lesson, but a warning against being inattentive to the poor. The rich man is never described as being evil, nor are we to assume that he got his riches in an unethical or immoral manner. His sole crime seems to be ignoring the poor man who was right out in front of his house. When we get our eyes off this part of the story, we are in danger of falling into the same myopic mess that doomed the rich man.
Another interesting bit: this doesn’t seem to be heaven. I have to say “seem” because the Bible isn’t very clear when it comes to describing the layout of heaven. In Revelation, we see faithful people in front of the throne of God, all the while being circled by the Elders, Living Creatures, etc. Then, we see heaven coming down out of heaven like a bride prepared for her husband… near the end of the Book after we thought heaven was already there the whole time. You’d be forgiven for being confused about exactly when heaven starts and what it looks like. And the Luke passage? It doesn’t sound anything like the descriptions in Revelation. And that’s a good thing. Would you really want to live in heaven where the noise of those in torment interrupted your rest? Doesn’t sound… well… heavenly, does it?
I believe that the Luke passage is a warning against ignoring the poor. It shows the ultimate fate of the unrighteous — they will be in a place and condition that is very undesirable at best, horrific at worst… and nothing can be done about it. Once we die, game over. (Interesting, isn’t it? that Lazarus is never described as being righteous. We assume he was because it would be difficult to believe that poor people get to go to heaven just because they’re poor)
There is also that sentence in there that shows Jesus knows his resurrection will not be a home run with everyone. Even if one is raised from the dead, he says, not everyone will believe. If they won’t believe Moses and the prophets, the resurrection won’t convince them, either. That’s fodder for a dozen conversations, isn’t it? I think that indicates that the resurrection occurred to convince believers of the Sonship of Christ and his power over death; it wasn’t designed to convince non-believers. What convinces non-believers? Our lives, lived out in front of them, our love given freely to them, and the way we live as strangers and pilgrims here. By watching us, they will see that “we have been with Jesus.”
Now, your turn. What do you think about Luke 16?
November 23rd, 2009 at 2:38 am
Boy do I remember those chart sermons and that “explanation” of Paradise! I never thought I’d want to be in a place where I could see the “other side” with all the torture going on. For far too long in my life, I was pretty certain if this were a literal explanation, I would be on the torture side of it all anyway because I could never live up to the legalistic expectations of “righteousness” I was being taught.
If you go back a page or two, the flow / context of Luke 16 seems to be a series of stories regarding our attitudes toward wealth. I think the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a part of that flow, and agree that it has far more to do with our attitude toward to poor (and our contrasting wealth) than it has to do with the “other side.”
That said, there is something in the story that I love … the thought of an angelic escort from this life to the next!
When my children would go to sleep on the living room floor, or in the car, I would carefully pick them up and carry them to their beds to rest for the night. I embrace the idea that my heavenly Father might send His angels to do the same for me when I fall “asleep” in death. And even if not, nothing lost! However, several members of our family have “seen” angelic beings just moments before drawing their final breath of life.
As always, good stuff, Patrick!
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
I think I have the same view of the point of the story, but I can always count on you to see things I don’t.
As far as it not being a parable, it seems very much like a parable to me, whether or not it is specifically named as such. It is at the end of a whole bunch of parables, some of which are identified that way, and some of which seem to come in the flow of his teaching. Actually, it seems more like 16:16-18 were stuck into the middle of the group of parables or stories.
I was mostly spared from the chart sermons, growing up in the Christian church (Disciples of Christ) until I was 12. I think I can remember one such lesson in a Bible class, but that’s it.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I remember the chart sermons, but they didn’t leave a lasting impression, much as powerpoint lessons today. I know – seeing is better than just hearing, but the main thing is the message from God’s word. My husband and I always had a disagreement about this being a parable or not – he taking the “not” side. However, I believe part of this lesson is that we have an obligation not only to help the poor and needy, but also to tell the Good News that Jesus brought. Wherever my husband dwells now, waiting for Jesus’ return, doesn’t matter to me because I know his life was filled with times of helping others both physically and with the Word and he is where Jesus wants him to be.
November 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 pm
Bravo, Jeanne M.!
November 25th, 2009 at 1:29 am
I tend to view this passage as parable, too; without anything requiring it to have a basis in reality. Only Luke recounts it, just as only John recounts the raising of Jesus’ friend Lazarus. So it’s hard to connect the two beyond the name … yet both accounts have something to do with resurrection. Is there a resurrection connection?
Personally, I think all concepts of a Paradise/Tartarus or a waiting place with centuries-old magazines on the coffee tables … well, they’re a way to put into human terms what we can’t comprehend or describe.
“We shall all be changed” (dead and living) “in the twinkling of an eye.” What does that timelessness look like from our point of view? Were Moses and Elijah so changed when they appeared transfigured with Christ? Where (and when?!?) were they in the interim. We don’t know. But it could have seemed only a moment for them, while centuries passed in the flow of time.
Or they might have been in the realm of Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man.
We just don’t know, and instead of accepting that in faith and trusting God, we too often feel confident we’ve figured out the only possible truth from what we’re certain are clues in scripture – which may not have been intended as clues, nor even to address the question we think they’re answering.
Story hint: Help the poor in this life; it’s too late to do so afterwards. And far too late to be sorry you didn’t. And far too late to believe when the era of faith has yielded to the eternity of fact.
Just what you said, Patrick!
November 25th, 2009 at 9:21 am
But isn’t helping the poor as a requirement for salvation another version of salvation by works? Just substitute giving for evangelism in the sermons I heard growing up and I might as well give up on ever having a relationship with God. I want to be free to give from a grateful heart. I don’t want to have to buy God’s love – He doesn’t need my money. Am I looking at it wrong?
Not at all, Lisa! Ignoring the poor — or the needs of anyone we come into contact with — reveals our hearts. The works don’t save us; they reveal our hearts. If our hearts are closed to those in need, we have nothing in common with Jesus. And if we have nothing in common with Jesus, how can we wear his name?
November 26th, 2009 at 5:39 am
Thank you – that makes sense to me.
November 26th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Thanks for bringing back some vivid memories of bed sheets in church and whacking of the sheet with a pointer….aka: stick !
I think you are dead on, Patrick !
As usual.
Happy Thanksgiving!
DU