자색 옷을 입은 부자는 왜 아브라함의 품에 들어가지 못하였는가 — 누가복음 16:19-31에 대한 사회ㆍ정치ㆍ경제ㆍ문화적 해석 — (Why Was the Rich Man Dressed in Purple Unable to Go into Abraham’s Bosom?: A Socio-Political-Economic-Cultural Interpretation on Luke 16:19-31)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : (재)대한성서공회 성경번역연구소
· 수록지 정보 : 성경원문연구 / 37호 / 152 ~ 172페이지
· 저자명 : 류호성

초록

In Luke 16:19-31, a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen died, but after his death, he was not carried to Abraham’s bosom but into the Hades. In economic perspective, most scholars interpret that the rich man liked his wealth too much that he didn’t take care of the poor man, Lazarus. This explanation has validity to a certain extent.
First, in the parable in Luke 16:1-13, the dishonest manager is related to the problem of wealth, and verse 14 also mentions the Pharisees who were lovers of money. It is therefore possible to read the whole chapter 16 with an economic point of view.
Second, Luke had to integrate the rich and the poor in their community, so he presented the eschatological ethics, i.e. if the rich does not use his wealth for the poor, he must go to the Hades.
Such understanding is however narrow. It does not consider the following requirements. First, the rich in the ancient Mediterranean-Palestinian society at the time of Jesus not only had a lot of money from today’s perspective, but were also at the top of the class structure, enjoying political power. Ancient societies were more closely associated with socio-political-economic structure than the ones of today.
Second, it did not consider the socio-cultural history aspect. Today, one can dress himself or herself freely without being conscious of his or her social class all the time. We can freely choose the shape and color of our dress. However, that was not the case in ancient societies. The color of the dress represents one’s social status in ancient societies. Purple clothes were only for those who belonged to the top of class structure, namely kings and emperors.
Third, it did not take into account the spatial structure and literary background. This parable is woven into the confrontation structure of two persons, the rich and the poor. If this parable can be understood from an economic point of view, the rich would be poor after the death, and the poor would be rich. But it is found that the rich went to the Hades, while the poor, Lazarus, went into the Abraham’s bosom. The compensation is not wealth but space: Abraham’s bosom and Hades. In Hades, the rich has no power whereas in Abraham’s bosom, Lazarus is very comfortable.
This is why the parable of Luke 16:19-31 should be interpreted from socio-political-cultural perspective. The rich was a political leader who had immense power. He was either Herodes Antipas who was a tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, or the one who executed John the baptist. God gave Antipas the power to take care of the poor and the righteous, but he became immersed in self-indulgence. He also persecuted the righteous. So he was sent into the Hades after his death. On the contrast, the poor Lazarus, symbolizing of the righteous one suffering under Antipas, was sent to Abraham’s bosom, which was the due blessing he deserved.

영어초록

In Luke 16:19-31, a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen died, but after his death, he was not carried to Abraham’s bosom but into the Hades. In economic perspective, most scholars interpret that the rich man liked his wealth too much that he didn’t take care of the poor man, Lazarus. This explanation has validity to a certain extent.
First, in the parable in Luke 16:1-13, the dishonest manager is related to the problem of wealth, and verse 14 also mentions the Pharisees who were lovers of money. It is therefore possible to read the whole chapter 16 with an economic point of view.
Second, Luke had to integrate the rich and the poor in their community, so he presented the eschatological ethics, i.e. if the rich does not use his wealth for the poor, he must go to the Hades.
Such understanding is however narrow. It does not consider the following requirements. First, the rich in the ancient Mediterranean-Palestinian society at the time of Jesus not only had a lot of money from today’s perspective, but were also at the top of the class structure, enjoying political power. Ancient societies were more closely associated with socio-political-economic structure than the ones of today.
Second, it did not consider the socio-cultural history aspect. Today, one can dress himself or herself freely without being conscious of his or her social class all the time. We can freely choose the shape and color of our dress. However, that was not the case in ancient societies. The color of the dress represents one’s social status in ancient societies. Purple clothes were only for those who belonged to the top of class structure, namely kings and emperors.
Third, it did not take into account the spatial structure and literary background. This parable is woven into the confrontation structure of two persons, the rich and the poor. If this parable can be understood from an economic point of view, the rich would be poor after the death, and the poor would be rich. But it is found that the rich went to the Hades, while the poor, Lazarus, went into the Abraham’s bosom. The compensation is not wealth but space: Abraham’s bosom and Hades. In Hades, the rich has no power whereas in Abraham’s bosom, Lazarus is very comfortable.
This is why the parable of Luke 16:19-31 should be interpreted from socio-political-cultural perspective. The rich was a political leader who had immense power. He was either Herodes Antipas who was a tetrarch of Galilee and Berea, or the one who executed John the baptist. God gave Antipas the power to take care of the poor and the righteous, but he became immersed in self-indulgence. He also persecuted the righteous. So he was sent into the Hades after his death. On the contrast, the poor Lazarus, symbolizing of the righteous one suffering under Antipas, was sent to Abraham’s bosom, which was the due blessing he deserved.

참고자료

· 없음