The chief servant of Abraham. The poor man at the doorstep. The dead man of a town near Jerusalem. Each of these permutations of "Eleazar" (or however it should be spelled) is both remarkable in some respect--and also unremarkable in some respect. The servant is both dear to Abraham, and also a servant who might be numbered among the greater cohort who were willing to follow Abraham into battle. The poor man is of some particular note, and yet (virtually by definition) the poor man can be numbered among many people who might have benefitted greatly from that which the rich man lavished on himself. And dear dead Lazarus? He could scarcely claim to be the only person deserving to be raised--as if anyone does.
In the particular case of the rich man's fate, it is to be wondered how his positioning in the afterlife against Lazarus specifically is of such note. If the rich man's brothers should have heard the proper teachings and warnings (and examples) from the rich man while yet he lived, could not the same be said of anyone else who had been deprived of the blessings--both spiritual and material--that the rich man might have provided?
Are we not to assume that the rich man's positioning as against Lazarus is but one of potentially infinite answerings that might be required of the rich man on innumerable levels and in innumerable fashions, as eternity might allow?
Might not Abraham have esteemed all of this faithful servants? Might not Jesus have raised everyone who had died during his ministry? More to the point, might not the disciples, empowered by God to raise the dead, have resurrected all of Israel (to say the least)--and fed them by the bounty displayed by Jesus--and given them all thereby the chance to be saved by Jesus' earthly ministry?
Is not the thread that connects the "Eleazars" the insoluble mystery--embedded in "aware, away, awry"--that the very existence and perception of particulars throws off our relationship to God?
No comments:
Post a Comment