the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

netherworld for his bad deeds which exceed his good deeds, whereas the poor man now
enjoys bliss since his good deeds exceeded his bad deeds. For this reason, they conclude that
the reversal of fate is based on immoral deeds and pious deeds in each case. 55 Yet no reason
is given for any indication that the two men have been judged according to good and bad
deeds from the parable, nor are the two men portrayed, in turn, as unjust and pious. Another
view is that it is due to personal wealth over against service of God, that is to say, the rich
man has spent excess resources for his own desires rather than redistributed it to those in need
by almsgiving. 56 It is not clear in the parable, however, whether the rich man gives Lazarus
charity, or whether the rich man would be involved with more alms than a piece of bread. On
the other hand, Scott suggests that the rich man’s chief fault is that he fails to pass through the
gate in order to help Lazarus and establish a relationship and solidarity with Lazarus. The
gate functions as a metaphor that discloses the ultimate depths of human existence. 57 In this
respect, the main instruction of the parable is to encourage transgressing social barriers, with
a willingness to develop meaningful relations outside one’s social and economic class. It is no
more than a forced reading in his theological paradigm, still less are there anywhere in the
parable hints to support it. Others argue that if the rich man had given alms to the poor and
tried to improve Lazarus’ condition, he probably would not have fallen into Hades. They, in
this view, conclude that the parable gives the audience a lesson in generous almsgiving and to
caring for one’s neighbour in need. 58 Of these views, the last one is the most convincing for
the reversal of fate. The righteousness of Lazarus is implicit to some extent, in that the poor,
Luke thinks, is identical with the righteous or those with who receive the grace of God. 59
The rich man would win the readers’ sympathy on account of his concern for the welfare
of his five brothers, but other aspects of his request serve to alienate the readers from him,
55. Hock, “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Background to Luke 16:19-31,” 456-57; J. Gwyn Griffiths,
“Cross-cultural Eschatology with Dives and Lazarus,” ExpTim 105 (1993), 7-12; Jeremias, Rediscovering the
Parables, 146.
56. Metzger, Consumption and Wealth in Luke’s Travel Narrative, 147, 154-56.
57. Scott, Hear Then the Parable, 150-51, 158-59; Hendrickx, The Parables of Jesus, 205, 213; Eugene S.
Wehrli, “Luke 16:19-31,” Int 31 (1977), 279.
58. Johnson, The Gospel of Luke, 256; Seccombe, Possessions and the Poor in Luke-Acts, 177; Piper, “Social
Background and Thematic Structure in Luke 16,” 1661; Green, Luke, 610; Derrett, “Fresh Light on St. Luke
XVI. II. Dives and Lazarus and the Preceding Sayings,” 373; Hultgren, Parables, 116; Lehtipuu,
“Characterization and Persuasion: The Rich Man and The Poor Man in Luke 16:19-31,” 94-97; Regalado, “The
Jewish Background of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,” 346; Snodgrass, Stories with Intent, 429-30;
Forbes, The God of Old: The Role of the Lukan Parables in the Purpose of Luke’s Gospel, 193, 195-97. Bailey,
“The New Testament Job, The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man An Exercise in Middle Eastern New
Testament Studies,” 28; Kilgallen, The Twenty Parables of Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, 131.
59. See Luke 1:52-53; 4:18; 6:20; 7:22; 14:13, 21; 21:3.
124