Hi!
I don’t think repentance is subject to restitution–returning to God does not require restitution … In most cases, I feel, they are oblivious to the pain and suffering of their victims.
I think sin does require restitution when possible, but not necessarily in proportion to what was lost. Eg: An attempt at restitution is required, but seldom the fullness of repayment. Restitution is the very principle of penance. Either praying for someone we have hurt, doing an act of charity to make up for what was lost, or actually restoring what what taken. Purification is also related to restitution; the restoring of grace lost. The church is praying, and the church is suffering. A sinner is seldom given a penance that repays the sin, especially if the affront to God’s goodness is taken into account; but penance is usually given.
I agree that God does not demand from man what is impossible. I don’t have any idea of proportions, but I agree perpetrators are oblivious to the pain of others. However, in this particular case I want to emphasize that the rich man could not really have avoided knowing. Maybe you mean oblivious in a subjective sense, and not objective ?
The sores described by Jesus are so obnoxiously large that no once could possibly miss them. Moreover, Lazarus was laid down at the rich man’s doorway (the gate.) The rich man would “step over” Lazarus to leave home. I think the rich man considered Lazarus an eyesore and impediment. (literally). Jews routinely thought that blessings were a sign of God’s favor, and that illness was caused by sin (alone). Lazarus was automatically considered a sinner. Cf: John 9:2 “Teacher, who sinned? Was it this man or his parents which caused him to be born blind?” etc.
I think that that is why Jesus introduced the dogs in Lazarus’ parable: even though the dogs acknowledged Lazarus’ plight and they, in their capacity, attempted to alleviate his suffering, their owner’s heart remained unmoved!
I think dogs are just dogs. (No offense intended.) Their capacity is conditioning and instinct. God may have sent them to Lazarus, but that’s not the point I was questioning. I don’t like assigning guilt to a person when it can not be proven; eg: as you judge, you will be judged. I’ve been on the loosing end of slander and false witness. I have even had priests condemning me for things I didn’t do; all because they judged shallowly and accepted slander from my ex-wife. There is often “more to the story” than first meets the eye.
You may be right … but I’m reluctant. I’m interested in what Lazarus would have thought as a real person in the abode of the dead. I don’t think Jesus’s parables are so shallow that they become worthless the more realistic one believes them to be.
I have other thoughts which may not directly support my point, but are worth mentioning: Dogs have a special place in stories of people who come to an evil death. I mean of Jezebel, and several other notorious old testament figures. Dogs arrive whenever someone is not buried, for the person was evil. Dogs eat up the flesh, and lick up the blood. Dogs were not always the cuddly pets we have today… their purposes were different at that time.
When Jesus introduces them into the parables, he may have multiple motives for doing so.
Jesus is not teaching about righteous indignation and the retaliation (pound for a pound) of the righteous against the unrighteous (“if your righteousness is not greater than…” & “do not repay evil for evil”); He is warning about our ability to repent (turn back to God) while there’s still time.
I’m not sure. Jesus does paraphrase “tit for tat” using Abraham’s lips: “Remember son, you had good things in your life and Lazarus had evil… Now you have evil and Lazarus has good…”
I think a Pound for a Pound is quite actively being considered by Abraham. Jesus is the one who made Abraham speak.
Since Lazarus’ parable involves Judaic theology, it is understandable that the rich man would presuppose that Abraham had the “ear” of God and could ascertain/gain certain favors. Yet, what is most important is Jesus’ prophetic message that even though one (Jesus) were to rise from the dead man would not believe!
Well… you’ve sort of swept my point under the rug. Also, Lazarus did rise from the dead. He did so even before Jesus did. Jesus raised Lazarus in order to fulfill the prophecy made in the parable. That was (ironically) the “final straw” which made Jesus’ enemies absolutely determined to kill him.
My point is this: God is never outdone in mercy and
justice. There will never be a smallest tittle of mercy that God does not repay, nor an injustice of the tiniest amount one will be able to attribute to God. At least, that’s what I believe.
The rich man, according to the law of Moses, ought to have put his dogs to death for having come into contact with something unclean. Yet the rich man does nothing to stop his dogs. He has the tiniest shard of a claim to mercy. It can be dismissed by us, but I don’t believe God will do so.
)
to seek the LORD . . . or choose not to . . . after death comes the judgement . . .
