I'm currently writing a paper on the Rich Man & Lazarus story. I remember being frustrated, in the past, that so many commentators refer to the idea that it was based on older stories BUT didn't state the details of those older stories. In my research, I finally did find the details of those older stories and I think it helps us to understand the point that Jesus was making by telling the story with a new twist.
The earliest version of the story seems to have originated in ancient Egypt. In this story, a man named Si-Osiris is reincarnated from the realm of the dead so as to deal with an Ethiopian magician who was upstaging his Egyptian counterparts. Si-Osiris is miraclously born to a childless couple and, before he is old enough to accomplish his purpose, he and his father share an interesting dialogue after observing the funerals of a rich man and a pauper. When the father suggests his hope to have a life and death like the rich man, Si-Osiris corrects him by taking him on a tour of the realm of the dead. There it is learned that the pauper has been elevated to a high position and the rich man is left on the outside looking in.
This story seems to have migrated and morphed into a variety of Jewish stories, the most famous of which involves the deaths of a rich tax collector named Bar-Ma’Jan and poor Torah scholar. The rich man is buried in style, the poor scholar left unmourned. A friend of this scholar is saddened by the contrast, but it subsequently revealed to him in a dream that the Bar-Ma’Jan is in torment while the pious friend is in bliss.
While the comparisons between these stories and our parable go a long way to proving that Jesus was not referring to historical figures, the contrasts help us to discover the specific point being made by Jesus’ adaptations and twists on the popular motif. Jesus absorbs the rich/poor contrast from the parallels. The TWIST that Jesus adds is that REVELATION will not be given. In the Egyptian story, Si-Osiris DOES give revelation about the realm of the dead to his father. In the Jewish story, a dream DOES give revelation about the realm of the dead to the friend. But In Jesus' story, the rich man is told that NO REVELATION will be given to his five brothers.
In my opinion, this demonstrates that Jesus' point was NOT about the evils of wealth. His point was NOT to give information about the afterlife. His point was that the pharisees (the specific audience of this parable) already had enough revelation from God. The problem was not lack of revelation, but lack of response to revelation. The pharisees were going to end up on the outside looking in, and no second chances were forthcoming.
Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
interesting, matt.
i thought i read on the old forum that there was a babylonian counterpart to the story and the rich man's name was "Dives." did you uncover any of this?
TK
i thought i read on the old forum that there was a babylonian counterpart to the story and the rich man's name was "Dives." did you uncover any of this?
TK
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
"dives" is just the Latin word for the term "rich"
Since Lazarus was given a name in the parable, some people, later on, wanted to give the rich guy a name too. So church tradition started calling the rich man "Dives." I didn't read of any Babylonian counterparts, just Egyptian (and later Judaic)
Since Lazarus was given a name in the parable, some people, later on, wanted to give the rich guy a name too. So church tradition started calling the rich man "Dives." I didn't read of any Babylonian counterparts, just Egyptian (and later Judaic)
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
Hi Matt,
Was Joachim Jeremias one of your sources in your research? I have his book on the parables and as I recall his conclusion sounds like what you came up with. He said the parable should have been called "the Parable of the Five Brothers", or something like that.
You wrote:
Blessings, Homer
Was Joachim Jeremias one of your sources in your research? I have his book on the parables and as I recall his conclusion sounds like what you came up with. He said the parable should have been called "the Parable of the Five Brothers", or something like that.
You wrote:
Do you see implications re universalism?The pharisees were going to end up on the outside looking in, and no second chances were forthcoming.
Blessings, Homer
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
Joachim Jeremias was a good source in my opinion and you are correct about the 'five brothers' suggestion. Richard Bauckham, though, gave the most information in regards to the Egyptian and Hebrew parallels.
Given my interpretation of the parable, I don't see it as primarily concerned with life after death (or life after 'life after death'). That being said, Jesus seems to be making a pretty clear point that if the this-worldly revelation is not enough for the pharisees, no amount of revelation will convince them. If anything, this seems to argue against any sort of post-death conversion. After all, even in torment, the rich man seems to have been morally unchanged. He still considered himself a child of Abraham. Instead of just ignorning Lazarus, he now just thought of him as a messenger boy. His only concern was for his own comforts and the comforts of his rich brothers. And if resurrection wouldn't even convince them, why would the final resurrection and the events there-afterward?
Given my interpretation of the parable, I don't see it as primarily concerned with life after death (or life after 'life after death'). That being said, Jesus seems to be making a pretty clear point that if the this-worldly revelation is not enough for the pharisees, no amount of revelation will convince them. If anything, this seems to argue against any sort of post-death conversion. After all, even in torment, the rich man seems to have been morally unchanged. He still considered himself a child of Abraham. Instead of just ignorning Lazarus, he now just thought of him as a messenger boy. His only concern was for his own comforts and the comforts of his rich brothers. And if resurrection wouldn't even convince them, why would the final resurrection and the events there-afterward?
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
*** Here's my paper on the parable.
Luke 16:19-31 contains a puzzling parable. Nearly every sentence of the story evokes a question (or two!). In fact, some would question whether the story is a parable at all, preferring instead to interpret it as an actual account of the fate of two real men. While the question of genre will certainly be discussed below, other categories of questions will also be confronted. The passage contains textual, historical, theological, spiritual, and social issues that need to be addressed in order to gain a thorough understanding of the texts’ message. We’ll begin by reading the passage from the New International Version (I have reproduced it below without verse numbers or paragraph breaks, so as to emphasize the overall unity of the story):
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'
This paper aims to give the readers of this biblical text a better grasp of what it means and why it is included in the Gospel of Luke. We will begin with the latter goal by quickly re-familiarizing the reader with the Gospel of Luke so as to determine the reasons for this texts’ placement in its broader context. Subsequently, we will take a line-by-line approach to the passage. Along the way, we will address specific issues raised by specific words, phrases, and sentences. Finally, we will summarize our findings and suggest possible applications of this passage for contemporary readers of Scripture.
The broader literary context for our story is two-part work of Luke-Acts. Luke is the longest of the four canonical gospels and focuses on questions of salvation (How could Gentiles and outcasts be included?), paradox (Why were Jews responding negatively?), crucifixion (Why and how did the cross fit into God’s plan?), and commitment (What is the proper response/commitment to Christ?). Commentators generally accept that our story fits into a section beginning with Luke 9:51 in which Jesus resolutely sets out for Jerusalem. As Jesus is on the way to accomplish his mission, his connection with the outcasts and rejection by the authorities becomes more and more clear (Luke 15:1-2). Jesus tells three stories that declare God’s pleasure when the lost repent and one story with a lesson that left the Pharisees sneering (Luke 16:14). The immediate context for our story involves the issue of how one uses worldly wealth. That the Pharisees loved money leads Luke into another parable which begins “There was a rich man” (Luke 16:19, NIV). Differing opinions about the main message of our story often stem from an emphasis on its relationship to either the immediate (money) or broader (rejection of Christ and his mission) context.
Before we begin our line-by-line look at Luke 16:19-31, it will be helpful to group the passage into specific sections. While most commentators seem to break the parable into two sections, dividing the text between v. 26 and v. 27, I want to suggest a three-fold division. The first section to be discussed is the setting/circumstance and is contained in verses 19-23. The second section, verses 24-26, contains the first round of request and rejection. Section three, beginning with verse 27 and continuing to the end of our passage, is the second round of request and rejection. This division will allow us to address three key issues connected to this story.
Section I Setting/Circumstance
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
The setting and circumstances alert us to some stark contrasts and a major reversal of fortunes. We have, in this section, two major contrasts between the rich man and the beggar named Lazarus. First, we have the contrast of their earthly lives. Second, we have the contrast of their post-death experiences. Both of these contrasts are significant to the proper understanding of the parable.
The first contrast could hardly have been made more vivid. If it had been important merely to establish a contrast between the two characters, it seemingly would have been enough to say one was rich and the other was a beggar. But the story elaborates on the richness of the rich man and the utter poverty of the poor man. The rich man was dressed in purple and fine linen. These were the colors and materials of luxury in the ancient world. According to David Wenham, the phrase ‘lived in luxury,’ when literally translated from Greek mean something like ‘enjoying himself brilliantly.’ This was a man who lived with pleasure. On the completely opposite end of the economic landscape laid a beggar named Lazarus. Pleasure was, perhaps, the furthest reality from his existence. He had next to nothing. When it says he longed for what fell from the rich man’s table, it is not referring to delicious leftovers of a high-priced meal, but to bread that had previously been used to wipe off the hands of the rich man and his guests. For the rich man, this bread was a discarded napkin. For Lazarus, it was the longing of the stomach. Besides being in abject poverty, Lazarus also had serious health issues. He was covered with sores that were, subsequently, licked by neighborhood dogs. Cyril of Alexandria commented on this addition to the story by reminding us that “animals relieve their own sufferings with their tongues, as they remove what pains them and gently soothe the sores. The rich man was crueler than the dogs, because he felt no sympathy or compassion for him but was completely unmerciful.” Cyril has rightly pointed out the serious connection between the rich man’s luxury and the beggar’s poverty, for it was at the rich man’s gate that Lazarus laid. So even amidst this great contrast there are some facts that bind the rich man and the beggar together. They were almost certainly both Jewish men (as will be demonstrated later). And they were, in a matter of speaking, next-door neighbors (only the beggar had no door, and the rich man was not neighborly).
The second contrast also carries with it a commonality. Both men died. The rich man’s riches did not prevent him from dying. It is only after they share in death that the contrast between their post-death experiences emerges. Whereas in terms of their earthly blessing a description of the rich man is given first and the beggar last, here we are first given the post-death experience of the beggar. Nothing is said of the beggar being buried. It is, in fact, unlikely that he was given any sort of proper burial since he was seemingly not cared for by anyone who knew him. But, surprisingly by some 1st century standards, this beggar was carried by angels to Abraham’s side. I say surprisingly because many people in the ancient world associated poverty with sinfulness and earthly blessing with God’s pleasure. Nevertheless, Abraham’s side is unmistakably a good place to be upon death. But whereas the beggar’s death moved from negative (no burial) to positive (arrival at Abraham’s side), the rich man’s death moves from positive to negative. He was buried, probably amidst a great gathering of earthly admirers. But the unknown reality at this stately funeral was that this rich man was actually being tormented in the afterlife. Not only was he in physical torment far worse than being covered with sores (being burned with fire), but he was in mental anguish being not far removed from a place of comfort (Abraham’s side) and a familiar looking beggar. Clearly, the situation of the rich man and the beggar has been reversed. Formerly, the beggar looked toward the rich man, hoping to gain a little bread. Now, the rich man looked toward the beggar, hoping to gain a little comfort. But before we move on to his requests, we must discuss a key question that has emerged from the setting of this story.
Issue #1 Is it a Parable?
One particular word in the setting section of this passage is so significant to interpretation that it demands special attention. That word is the name of the beggar, Lazarus. Because he is given a name, many popular level authors have speculated that this story is not simply a parable, but a real life account known to Jesus’ and his hearers. We must now address this key issue.
Nearly every commentator on this story mentions the fact that Lazarus is the only character given a proper name in all of Jesus’ parables. This has led some to question whether this story even fits within the genre of parable. It is argued, instead, that Lazarus and the rich men were historical figures and Jesus is simply sharing a true and meaningful story. The only other fact that seems to be mentioned in favor of this argument is that the passage never declares itself to be a parable. Since different rules of interpretation emerge for narrative and parable, it is extremely important that the nature of this passage be determined. Must parables declare themselves to be parables? Is the fact that the beggar is given a name an indicator that this is a historical case? To answer the first question, we need only to look at the rest of Luke. Many of the stories recognized as parables in Luke begin with the same form as this story. While it is true that the author of Luke has labeled some such cases as parables, it was very rare for Jesus, himself, to label his speeches as parables. In fact, in the parable of the shrewd manager (directly preceding our story), we have the exact same opening form (Luke 16:1) as we encounter in our parable. To answer the second question, it is far more likely that the beggar is given a proper name to make an important point. The name Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Eleazar which means ‘God is my help.’ It may be that the beggar is given this particular proper name in order to reinforce the theme that God is a help to the needy. In other words, that the beggar is given a proper name while his neighbor remains a generic rich man may be a way of emphasizing what kind of people are most noteworthy to God. Thus, despite the pronoun and the lack of the word ‘parable,’ it is the opinion of the vast majority of scholars that this story is, indeed, a parable.
That the story is a parable is further proven by the discovery of ancient parallels to Jesus’ story. Recent scholarship now recognizes that Jesus was not making this story up out of thin air. He was, instead, adapting and putting an interesting twist on a well-established literary motif. The earliest version of the story seems to have originated in ancient Egypt. In this story, a man named Si-Osiris is reincarnated from the realm of the dead so as to deal with an Ethiopian magician who was upstaging his Egyptian counterparts. Si-Osiris is miraclously born to a childless couple and, before he is old enough to accomplish his purpose, he and his father share an interesting dialogue after observing the funerals of a rich man and a pauper. When the father suggests his hope to have a life and death like the rich man, Si-Osiris corrects him by taking him on a tour of the realm of the dead. There it is learned that the pauper has been elevated to a high position and the rich man is left on the outside looking in. This story seems to have migrated and morphed into a variety of Jewish stories, the most famous of which involves the deaths of a rich tax collector named Bar-Ma’Jan and poor Torah scholar. The rich man is buried in style, the poor scholar left unmourned. A friend of this scholar is saddened by the contrast, but it is subsequently revealed to him in a dream that Bar-Ma’Jan is in torment while the pious friend is in bliss. While the comparisons between these stories and our parable go a long way to proving that Jesus was not referring to historical figures, the contrasts help us to discover the specific point being made by Jesus’ adaptations and twists on the popular motif.
Section II Request & Rejection #1
So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
Returning to a line-by-line analysis of our parable, we move on to section two which makes up the first round of request (by the rich man) and rejection (by Abraham). That the rich man calls him ‘Father Abraham’ all but assures us that Jesus’ has a Jewish man in mind. That a wealthy (considered a sign of God’s blessing) Jewish man would end up in a place of torment is a startling feature of Jesus’ story, but a feature nonetheless. Outside of his neglect for Lazarus, no heinous crime had been levied against him. And yet we find him in Hades crying out in agony. His request seems small, only wishing for a drop of water to offer a small bit of relief from his agony. But it is possible to see, in his request, an abiding remnant of his life-long neglect of Lazarus as a person. Even in the face of the evidence, the rich man still thinks of Lazarus as a servant and his own comfort as the priority. His request is denied on the grounds that he’s had plenty of comforts already (during his time on earth). It is Lazarus’ time to be comforted. Abraham mentions a further reason for the rejection of the rich man’s request. In this place (Hades) there is no possibility of social mobility. One’s residence is fixed from this point on. The post-death circumstances of this rich man in Hades have been used, by some, to build a doctrine of Hell. Is this legitimate?
Issue #2 Does this passage teach us about the nature of hell?
Many of those who argue for a narrative reading of this passage seem to do so in hopes of protecting the legitimacy of basing information about the afterlife on this text, and especially from this section. In the absence of an abundance of information about ‘hell,’ it is tempting to build a doctrine of hell from this story. This parable, then, is one of the passages most cited in defense of the doctrine that hell is a place of fire and conscious torment. Popular author Randy Alcorn, for example, says, “In his story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus taught that in Hell, the wicked suffer terribly, are fully conscious, retain their desires and memories and reasoning, long for relief, cannot be comforted, cannot leave their torment, and are bereft of hope.” He goes on to argue that Lazarus was probably a real man and that if we can’t derive any conclusions about the nature of hell from this passage, there is seemingly no value in Jesus’ giving us such details. But surely his statements mis-identify the point of Jesus’ story. If Jesus is picking up a popular motif that originated in Egypt and was adapted by Greek-influenced Jews, we should take more interest in what Jesus added and/or subtracted from the story than in what remained the same. In other words, Jesus’ emphasis is not on the nature of the afterlife. It is possible that affirming the story’s portrayal of the afterlife may be affirming Egyptian or Greek ideas rather than biblical ones. This possibility becomes stronger when we consider the biblical usage of the word in question. What is translated, here, as ‘hell’ is the Greek word ‘hades,’ which “came into biblical usage when the Septuagint translators chose it to represent the Hebrew sheol, an Old Testament concept vastly different from the pagan Greek notions.” A study of the usage of sheol in the Old Testament reveals different conclusions about the realm of the dead than could be made from our story. The word ‘hell,’ as contemporarily understood, is not what is in mind here. To build a doctrine of the afterlife from the specific details of this parable, then, seems dangerous. Much better to take from section two the idea that the situations of the rich man and Lazarus have, upon death, been reversed and that this reversal is irreversible and ultimately just.
Section III Request & Rejection #2
He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'
As mentioned above, most scholars consider this section to be the original ‘twist’ on the popular motif. It seems clear that this is the part of the story that Jesus’ is most interested in emphasizing. In the Egyptian story, the living found out about the afterlife because Si-Osiris was from the realm of the dead. In the Jewish story, the living found out about the afterlife because it was revealed in a dream. Jesus’ story departs from that line of thought. Only the reader receives the revelation about the fate of the rich man and Lazarus. The earthly characters in the story are left in the dark. They will not be given a warning through reincarnation, a resurrection, a vision, or a dream. Why? Abraham’s bold reply is that they’ve already had enough revelation (Moses and the Prophets, a further indication of the rich man’s Jewishness). The rich man insists, though, that they would be convinced if only someone visited them from the realm of the dead. Again Abraham rejects the request. According to Abraham, not even a resurrection would convince the rich man’s five brothers to repent.
Issue #3 So what is the main message of this parable?
Though this parables certainly touches on various issues, there has been much debate about what Jesus’ main intention would have been in the re-telling (and re-shaping) of this popular story. Having dismissed the idea that the primary purpose of the passage is to provide information about the after-life, we are left with two possible main messages. Is it a parable speaking against worldly wealth (which would fit well with Luke’s immediate context) or is it mainly a parable about the dangers of failing to respond to revelation with repentance (Luke’s broader context)?
A good argument can be made for placing Jesus’ emphasis on the richness of the rich man and its negative ramifications. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that Luke’s Gospel is very concerned with issues of generosity. For Luke, “Discipleship expresses itself in service to others, so it is generous with resources.” But given that both the Egyptians and Jewish parallels to this story also entail a rich man, it is hard to argue that his richness is the emphasis of either Jesus or Luke. Luke may have been more inclined to uniquely include this parable because of the rich/poor contrast, but Jesus original emphasis seems to lie more at the end of the story than in the beginning.
I would argue, along with many scholars, that the main message of the parable is that urgent repentance is the necessary response to known revelation. As mentioned above, revelation is the aspect of the original that Jesus tweaked. Only in his version is earthly revelation about the realm of the dead denied to the characters in the story. The shocking component of the parable is that no further revelation will be given to the unrepentant for the very reason that their rejection of known revelation proves that additional information would not bring about change. Jeremias summarizes this nicely in saying, “Jesus does not want to comment on the social problem nor does he intend to give teaching about the afterlife, but he relates the parable to warn men who resemble the brothers of the rich man of impending danger.”
Of course, to say that the main message of the parable is the necessity of repentance as a response to revelation is not to completely dismiss the immediate context of love for worldly wealth. After all, what previous revelation is highlighted in the story? Is it not the revealed command to aid the poor and needy? The rich man had had access to Moses and the Prophets, both of which contain commands regarding our responsibility to the needy. But these revelations had been ignored.
If the above understanding of this parable is correct, we are left with an uncomfortable question. Is it really true that even a resurrection would not convince the unrepentant to join the Kingdom of God? We’d like to think otherwise. Most of us would prefer to imagine that if God revealed Himself in a more powerful way, we would respond with an increased level of obedience and dedication. Many times I have heard atheists declare that if God’s voice boomed from the sky they would believe and obey His commands. But this is not merely a problem among non-believers. A host of Christians, also, reserve their full-fledged obedience to God until He demonstrates Himself on a more obvious scale. In other words, we believe that the problem is in the amount of information God has given us, not in the response we have given God. We tell ourselves that we would respond if God initiated, but this parable teaches that God has initiated and many have not responded. Jeremias words it this way, “He who will not submit to the Word of God, will not be converted by a miracle. The demand for a sign is an evasion and a sign of impenitence.” This parable, then, is particularly relevant to those who demand a sign from God prior to an increase in their commitment levels, especially in light of the fact that we have much further revelation than did the rich man in the parable. He was working with the revelation of the Law and the Prophets. We, in fact, have received the revelation of Jesus Christ’s life, death, and even resurrection. Abraham’s shocking claim has been verified. Not even resurrection (and Luke knew of another ‘Lazarus’) was enough to convince the unrepentant heart.
The parables seems particularly relevant to the contemporary American Church where many assume their favored status with God based simply on blood. The rich man, despite his obvious rejection of Moses and the Prophets, still thought of Abraham as his father. Abraham was willing to admit the genetics, but his further responses to the rich man revealed that it was not enough simply to have Jewish blood. Like the rich man, we have had access to God’s Word but, in many cases, have failed to respond with repentance and transformation. Our failure, perhaps, is never more apparent than in our neglect for the poor. Jesus’ story left his hearer (and Luke’s record of the story leaves his reader) at a point of decision not unlike that of the five remaining brothers. Will we respond to known revelation? For us and for now, the opportunity to repent and adhere to God’s will remains.
Bibliography
Alcorn, Randy. Heaven. Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House, 2004.
Barclay, William. The Parables of Jesus. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1970.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and its Parallels,” NTS 37 (1991): 225-246.
Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Brill Academic Publishers, 1998.
Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1990.
Fudge, Edward W. The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment. Verdict Publications, 1982.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables of Jesus. New York: Scribner, 1963.
Just, Arthur A. Luke. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2003.
Kistemaker, Simon J. The Parables: Understanding the Stories Jesus Told. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1980.
Knight, George W. “The Rich Man and Lazarus,” Review and Expositor 94 (1997): 277-282.
Reid, Daniel G. The IVP Dictionary of the New Testament: A One Volume Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2004.
Wenham, David. The Parables of Jesus. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1989.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1996.
Luke 16:19-31 contains a puzzling parable. Nearly every sentence of the story evokes a question (or two!). In fact, some would question whether the story is a parable at all, preferring instead to interpret it as an actual account of the fate of two real men. While the question of genre will certainly be discussed below, other categories of questions will also be confronted. The passage contains textual, historical, theological, spiritual, and social issues that need to be addressed in order to gain a thorough understanding of the texts’ message. We’ll begin by reading the passage from the New International Version (I have reproduced it below without verse numbers or paragraph breaks, so as to emphasize the overall unity of the story):
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.' He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'
This paper aims to give the readers of this biblical text a better grasp of what it means and why it is included in the Gospel of Luke. We will begin with the latter goal by quickly re-familiarizing the reader with the Gospel of Luke so as to determine the reasons for this texts’ placement in its broader context. Subsequently, we will take a line-by-line approach to the passage. Along the way, we will address specific issues raised by specific words, phrases, and sentences. Finally, we will summarize our findings and suggest possible applications of this passage for contemporary readers of Scripture.
The broader literary context for our story is two-part work of Luke-Acts. Luke is the longest of the four canonical gospels and focuses on questions of salvation (How could Gentiles and outcasts be included?), paradox (Why were Jews responding negatively?), crucifixion (Why and how did the cross fit into God’s plan?), and commitment (What is the proper response/commitment to Christ?). Commentators generally accept that our story fits into a section beginning with Luke 9:51 in which Jesus resolutely sets out for Jerusalem. As Jesus is on the way to accomplish his mission, his connection with the outcasts and rejection by the authorities becomes more and more clear (Luke 15:1-2). Jesus tells three stories that declare God’s pleasure when the lost repent and one story with a lesson that left the Pharisees sneering (Luke 16:14). The immediate context for our story involves the issue of how one uses worldly wealth. That the Pharisees loved money leads Luke into another parable which begins “There was a rich man” (Luke 16:19, NIV). Differing opinions about the main message of our story often stem from an emphasis on its relationship to either the immediate (money) or broader (rejection of Christ and his mission) context.
Before we begin our line-by-line look at Luke 16:19-31, it will be helpful to group the passage into specific sections. While most commentators seem to break the parable into two sections, dividing the text between v. 26 and v. 27, I want to suggest a three-fold division. The first section to be discussed is the setting/circumstance and is contained in verses 19-23. The second section, verses 24-26, contains the first round of request and rejection. Section three, beginning with verse 27 and continuing to the end of our passage, is the second round of request and rejection. This division will allow us to address three key issues connected to this story.
Section I Setting/Circumstance
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
The setting and circumstances alert us to some stark contrasts and a major reversal of fortunes. We have, in this section, two major contrasts between the rich man and the beggar named Lazarus. First, we have the contrast of their earthly lives. Second, we have the contrast of their post-death experiences. Both of these contrasts are significant to the proper understanding of the parable.
The first contrast could hardly have been made more vivid. If it had been important merely to establish a contrast between the two characters, it seemingly would have been enough to say one was rich and the other was a beggar. But the story elaborates on the richness of the rich man and the utter poverty of the poor man. The rich man was dressed in purple and fine linen. These were the colors and materials of luxury in the ancient world. According to David Wenham, the phrase ‘lived in luxury,’ when literally translated from Greek mean something like ‘enjoying himself brilliantly.’ This was a man who lived with pleasure. On the completely opposite end of the economic landscape laid a beggar named Lazarus. Pleasure was, perhaps, the furthest reality from his existence. He had next to nothing. When it says he longed for what fell from the rich man’s table, it is not referring to delicious leftovers of a high-priced meal, but to bread that had previously been used to wipe off the hands of the rich man and his guests. For the rich man, this bread was a discarded napkin. For Lazarus, it was the longing of the stomach. Besides being in abject poverty, Lazarus also had serious health issues. He was covered with sores that were, subsequently, licked by neighborhood dogs. Cyril of Alexandria commented on this addition to the story by reminding us that “animals relieve their own sufferings with their tongues, as they remove what pains them and gently soothe the sores. The rich man was crueler than the dogs, because he felt no sympathy or compassion for him but was completely unmerciful.” Cyril has rightly pointed out the serious connection between the rich man’s luxury and the beggar’s poverty, for it was at the rich man’s gate that Lazarus laid. So even amidst this great contrast there are some facts that bind the rich man and the beggar together. They were almost certainly both Jewish men (as will be demonstrated later). And they were, in a matter of speaking, next-door neighbors (only the beggar had no door, and the rich man was not neighborly).
The second contrast also carries with it a commonality. Both men died. The rich man’s riches did not prevent him from dying. It is only after they share in death that the contrast between their post-death experiences emerges. Whereas in terms of their earthly blessing a description of the rich man is given first and the beggar last, here we are first given the post-death experience of the beggar. Nothing is said of the beggar being buried. It is, in fact, unlikely that he was given any sort of proper burial since he was seemingly not cared for by anyone who knew him. But, surprisingly by some 1st century standards, this beggar was carried by angels to Abraham’s side. I say surprisingly because many people in the ancient world associated poverty with sinfulness and earthly blessing with God’s pleasure. Nevertheless, Abraham’s side is unmistakably a good place to be upon death. But whereas the beggar’s death moved from negative (no burial) to positive (arrival at Abraham’s side), the rich man’s death moves from positive to negative. He was buried, probably amidst a great gathering of earthly admirers. But the unknown reality at this stately funeral was that this rich man was actually being tormented in the afterlife. Not only was he in physical torment far worse than being covered with sores (being burned with fire), but he was in mental anguish being not far removed from a place of comfort (Abraham’s side) and a familiar looking beggar. Clearly, the situation of the rich man and the beggar has been reversed. Formerly, the beggar looked toward the rich man, hoping to gain a little bread. Now, the rich man looked toward the beggar, hoping to gain a little comfort. But before we move on to his requests, we must discuss a key question that has emerged from the setting of this story.
Issue #1 Is it a Parable?
One particular word in the setting section of this passage is so significant to interpretation that it demands special attention. That word is the name of the beggar, Lazarus. Because he is given a name, many popular level authors have speculated that this story is not simply a parable, but a real life account known to Jesus’ and his hearers. We must now address this key issue.
Nearly every commentator on this story mentions the fact that Lazarus is the only character given a proper name in all of Jesus’ parables. This has led some to question whether this story even fits within the genre of parable. It is argued, instead, that Lazarus and the rich men were historical figures and Jesus is simply sharing a true and meaningful story. The only other fact that seems to be mentioned in favor of this argument is that the passage never declares itself to be a parable. Since different rules of interpretation emerge for narrative and parable, it is extremely important that the nature of this passage be determined. Must parables declare themselves to be parables? Is the fact that the beggar is given a name an indicator that this is a historical case? To answer the first question, we need only to look at the rest of Luke. Many of the stories recognized as parables in Luke begin with the same form as this story. While it is true that the author of Luke has labeled some such cases as parables, it was very rare for Jesus, himself, to label his speeches as parables. In fact, in the parable of the shrewd manager (directly preceding our story), we have the exact same opening form (Luke 16:1) as we encounter in our parable. To answer the second question, it is far more likely that the beggar is given a proper name to make an important point. The name Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Eleazar which means ‘God is my help.’ It may be that the beggar is given this particular proper name in order to reinforce the theme that God is a help to the needy. In other words, that the beggar is given a proper name while his neighbor remains a generic rich man may be a way of emphasizing what kind of people are most noteworthy to God. Thus, despite the pronoun and the lack of the word ‘parable,’ it is the opinion of the vast majority of scholars that this story is, indeed, a parable.
That the story is a parable is further proven by the discovery of ancient parallels to Jesus’ story. Recent scholarship now recognizes that Jesus was not making this story up out of thin air. He was, instead, adapting and putting an interesting twist on a well-established literary motif. The earliest version of the story seems to have originated in ancient Egypt. In this story, a man named Si-Osiris is reincarnated from the realm of the dead so as to deal with an Ethiopian magician who was upstaging his Egyptian counterparts. Si-Osiris is miraclously born to a childless couple and, before he is old enough to accomplish his purpose, he and his father share an interesting dialogue after observing the funerals of a rich man and a pauper. When the father suggests his hope to have a life and death like the rich man, Si-Osiris corrects him by taking him on a tour of the realm of the dead. There it is learned that the pauper has been elevated to a high position and the rich man is left on the outside looking in. This story seems to have migrated and morphed into a variety of Jewish stories, the most famous of which involves the deaths of a rich tax collector named Bar-Ma’Jan and poor Torah scholar. The rich man is buried in style, the poor scholar left unmourned. A friend of this scholar is saddened by the contrast, but it is subsequently revealed to him in a dream that Bar-Ma’Jan is in torment while the pious friend is in bliss. While the comparisons between these stories and our parable go a long way to proving that Jesus was not referring to historical figures, the contrasts help us to discover the specific point being made by Jesus’ adaptations and twists on the popular motif.
Section II Request & Rejection #1
So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
Returning to a line-by-line analysis of our parable, we move on to section two which makes up the first round of request (by the rich man) and rejection (by Abraham). That the rich man calls him ‘Father Abraham’ all but assures us that Jesus’ has a Jewish man in mind. That a wealthy (considered a sign of God’s blessing) Jewish man would end up in a place of torment is a startling feature of Jesus’ story, but a feature nonetheless. Outside of his neglect for Lazarus, no heinous crime had been levied against him. And yet we find him in Hades crying out in agony. His request seems small, only wishing for a drop of water to offer a small bit of relief from his agony. But it is possible to see, in his request, an abiding remnant of his life-long neglect of Lazarus as a person. Even in the face of the evidence, the rich man still thinks of Lazarus as a servant and his own comfort as the priority. His request is denied on the grounds that he’s had plenty of comforts already (during his time on earth). It is Lazarus’ time to be comforted. Abraham mentions a further reason for the rejection of the rich man’s request. In this place (Hades) there is no possibility of social mobility. One’s residence is fixed from this point on. The post-death circumstances of this rich man in Hades have been used, by some, to build a doctrine of Hell. Is this legitimate?
Issue #2 Does this passage teach us about the nature of hell?
Many of those who argue for a narrative reading of this passage seem to do so in hopes of protecting the legitimacy of basing information about the afterlife on this text, and especially from this section. In the absence of an abundance of information about ‘hell,’ it is tempting to build a doctrine of hell from this story. This parable, then, is one of the passages most cited in defense of the doctrine that hell is a place of fire and conscious torment. Popular author Randy Alcorn, for example, says, “In his story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus taught that in Hell, the wicked suffer terribly, are fully conscious, retain their desires and memories and reasoning, long for relief, cannot be comforted, cannot leave their torment, and are bereft of hope.” He goes on to argue that Lazarus was probably a real man and that if we can’t derive any conclusions about the nature of hell from this passage, there is seemingly no value in Jesus’ giving us such details. But surely his statements mis-identify the point of Jesus’ story. If Jesus is picking up a popular motif that originated in Egypt and was adapted by Greek-influenced Jews, we should take more interest in what Jesus added and/or subtracted from the story than in what remained the same. In other words, Jesus’ emphasis is not on the nature of the afterlife. It is possible that affirming the story’s portrayal of the afterlife may be affirming Egyptian or Greek ideas rather than biblical ones. This possibility becomes stronger when we consider the biblical usage of the word in question. What is translated, here, as ‘hell’ is the Greek word ‘hades,’ which “came into biblical usage when the Septuagint translators chose it to represent the Hebrew sheol, an Old Testament concept vastly different from the pagan Greek notions.” A study of the usage of sheol in the Old Testament reveals different conclusions about the realm of the dead than could be made from our story. The word ‘hell,’ as contemporarily understood, is not what is in mind here. To build a doctrine of the afterlife from the specific details of this parable, then, seems dangerous. Much better to take from section two the idea that the situations of the rich man and Lazarus have, upon death, been reversed and that this reversal is irreversible and ultimately just.
Section III Request & Rejection #2
He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.' 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'
As mentioned above, most scholars consider this section to be the original ‘twist’ on the popular motif. It seems clear that this is the part of the story that Jesus’ is most interested in emphasizing. In the Egyptian story, the living found out about the afterlife because Si-Osiris was from the realm of the dead. In the Jewish story, the living found out about the afterlife because it was revealed in a dream. Jesus’ story departs from that line of thought. Only the reader receives the revelation about the fate of the rich man and Lazarus. The earthly characters in the story are left in the dark. They will not be given a warning through reincarnation, a resurrection, a vision, or a dream. Why? Abraham’s bold reply is that they’ve already had enough revelation (Moses and the Prophets, a further indication of the rich man’s Jewishness). The rich man insists, though, that they would be convinced if only someone visited them from the realm of the dead. Again Abraham rejects the request. According to Abraham, not even a resurrection would convince the rich man’s five brothers to repent.
Issue #3 So what is the main message of this parable?
Though this parables certainly touches on various issues, there has been much debate about what Jesus’ main intention would have been in the re-telling (and re-shaping) of this popular story. Having dismissed the idea that the primary purpose of the passage is to provide information about the after-life, we are left with two possible main messages. Is it a parable speaking against worldly wealth (which would fit well with Luke’s immediate context) or is it mainly a parable about the dangers of failing to respond to revelation with repentance (Luke’s broader context)?
A good argument can be made for placing Jesus’ emphasis on the richness of the rich man and its negative ramifications. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that Luke’s Gospel is very concerned with issues of generosity. For Luke, “Discipleship expresses itself in service to others, so it is generous with resources.” But given that both the Egyptians and Jewish parallels to this story also entail a rich man, it is hard to argue that his richness is the emphasis of either Jesus or Luke. Luke may have been more inclined to uniquely include this parable because of the rich/poor contrast, but Jesus original emphasis seems to lie more at the end of the story than in the beginning.
I would argue, along with many scholars, that the main message of the parable is that urgent repentance is the necessary response to known revelation. As mentioned above, revelation is the aspect of the original that Jesus tweaked. Only in his version is earthly revelation about the realm of the dead denied to the characters in the story. The shocking component of the parable is that no further revelation will be given to the unrepentant for the very reason that their rejection of known revelation proves that additional information would not bring about change. Jeremias summarizes this nicely in saying, “Jesus does not want to comment on the social problem nor does he intend to give teaching about the afterlife, but he relates the parable to warn men who resemble the brothers of the rich man of impending danger.”
Of course, to say that the main message of the parable is the necessity of repentance as a response to revelation is not to completely dismiss the immediate context of love for worldly wealth. After all, what previous revelation is highlighted in the story? Is it not the revealed command to aid the poor and needy? The rich man had had access to Moses and the Prophets, both of which contain commands regarding our responsibility to the needy. But these revelations had been ignored.
If the above understanding of this parable is correct, we are left with an uncomfortable question. Is it really true that even a resurrection would not convince the unrepentant to join the Kingdom of God? We’d like to think otherwise. Most of us would prefer to imagine that if God revealed Himself in a more powerful way, we would respond with an increased level of obedience and dedication. Many times I have heard atheists declare that if God’s voice boomed from the sky they would believe and obey His commands. But this is not merely a problem among non-believers. A host of Christians, also, reserve their full-fledged obedience to God until He demonstrates Himself on a more obvious scale. In other words, we believe that the problem is in the amount of information God has given us, not in the response we have given God. We tell ourselves that we would respond if God initiated, but this parable teaches that God has initiated and many have not responded. Jeremias words it this way, “He who will not submit to the Word of God, will not be converted by a miracle. The demand for a sign is an evasion and a sign of impenitence.” This parable, then, is particularly relevant to those who demand a sign from God prior to an increase in their commitment levels, especially in light of the fact that we have much further revelation than did the rich man in the parable. He was working with the revelation of the Law and the Prophets. We, in fact, have received the revelation of Jesus Christ’s life, death, and even resurrection. Abraham’s shocking claim has been verified. Not even resurrection (and Luke knew of another ‘Lazarus’) was enough to convince the unrepentant heart.
The parables seems particularly relevant to the contemporary American Church where many assume their favored status with God based simply on blood. The rich man, despite his obvious rejection of Moses and the Prophets, still thought of Abraham as his father. Abraham was willing to admit the genetics, but his further responses to the rich man revealed that it was not enough simply to have Jewish blood. Like the rich man, we have had access to God’s Word but, in many cases, have failed to respond with repentance and transformation. Our failure, perhaps, is never more apparent than in our neglect for the poor. Jesus’ story left his hearer (and Luke’s record of the story leaves his reader) at a point of decision not unlike that of the five remaining brothers. Will we respond to known revelation? For us and for now, the opportunity to repent and adhere to God’s will remains.
Bibliography
Alcorn, Randy. Heaven. Carol Stream, Illinois: Tyndale House, 2004.
Barclay, William. The Parables of Jesus. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1970.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and its Parallels,” NTS 37 (1991): 225-246.
Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Brill Academic Publishers, 1998.
Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1990.
Fudge, Edward W. The Fire that Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment. Verdict Publications, 1982.
Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Parables of Jesus. New York: Scribner, 1963.
Just, Arthur A. Luke. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2003.
Kistemaker, Simon J. The Parables: Understanding the Stories Jesus Told. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1980.
Knight, George W. “The Rich Man and Lazarus,” Review and Expositor 94 (1997): 277-282.
Reid, Daniel G. The IVP Dictionary of the New Testament: A One Volume Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2004.
Wenham, David. The Parables of Jesus. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1989.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 1996.
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
very interesting, and well done!
TK
TK
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
I think that Jesus was using, as a basis for his parable, a belief about hades which was common among the Jews of His day.
Indeed, if you examine the Discourse Concerning Hades, by Josephus, the Jewish Historian of the first century, you will find a striking resemblance to Jesus' description in The Rich Man and Lazarus parable, only in greater detail.
You can read the essence of the Discourse Concerning Hades by clicking on the link below:
HADES
Indeed, if you examine the Discourse Concerning Hades, by Josephus, the Jewish Historian of the first century, you will find a striking resemblance to Jesus' description in The Rich Man and Lazarus parable, only in greater detail.
You can read the essence of the Discourse Concerning Hades by clicking on the link below:
HADES
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
Matt,
Great job! Let us know when your commentary will be available.
Homer
Great job! Let us know when your commentary will be available.
Homer
Re: Roots of the Rich Man & Lazarus Parable
haha, thanks for the feedback everyone
It was interesting, today, as I drove here to school. I was listening to the past weeks' episodes of Steve's show and the Rich Man & Lazarus parable kept coming up over and over.
It was interesting, today, as I drove here to school. I was listening to the past weeks' episodes of Steve's show and the Rich Man & Lazarus parable kept coming up over and over.