The Rich Man and Lazarus

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Luke 16:19-31

Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. 20 And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, 21 and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. 22 Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Many who believe in the doctrine of eternal conscious torment will say that this is what hell is like—that it is this literal fire where people are being tormented and burning but never dying. They deny this as a parable, pointing out the fact that the man, Lazarus, is specifically named, making this more of a historical event. Furthermore, they will point to the fact that Lazarus is still alive after he died, and requests water because he is so hot in the flame. In our minds, we can all imagine what this looks like, and it does sound quite literal.

However, just because something sounds literal and we can imagine it, that doesn’t mean it is literal. Take for example the beasts that Daniel sees in his visions. There is a male goat that becomes enraged with a ram so that he strikes against him to shatter his two horns, hurling him to the ground and trampling on him (Dan 8:6-8). That sounds literal at first glance, but an interpretation is given later about this to prove that it is not. Similarly, when the fourth beast is thrown into the fire (Dan 7:11), the interpretation is not that this is a literal fire, but rather, it means that the beast’s “dominion will be taken away, annihilated and destroyed forever” (Dan 7:26). Another example of literal-sounding fire that is metaphorical is Ezekiel 20:47, “Behold, I am about to kindle a fire in you, and it will consume every green tree in you, as well as every dry tree; the blazing flame will not be quenched and the whole surface from south to north will be burned by it.” The trees symbolize the people of Judah, and God is saying that no one will escape His wrath. But this is parabolic speaking (v. 49). Even in Ezekiel 21:31, God says that He will blow on them with the fire of His wrath, which is interpreted as meaning, “I will give you into the hand of brutal men, skilled in destruction.” Again, the fire is not literal. It is a word to communicate God’s divine judgement. For these people to be killed by the sword is the same thing as God blowing fire on them. The fire is the symbolic, while being delivered over to violent men is the literal.

If we notice the literary structure happening in the book of Luke, parables are previously being taught: First, it is the parable of the guests (14:7-15). Second, the parable of the dinner (14:16-14). Third, the parable of the lost sheep (15:1-7). Fourth, the parable of the lost coin (15:8-10). Fifth, the parable of the prodigal son (15:11-32). Sixth, the parable of the unrighteous steward (16:1-18). Then finally, in 16:19-31 we come to the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which I believe is a parable because up to this point it has consistently been parables.

Notice how Jesus starts off these parables:

• “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast…” (14:8)

• “A man was giving a big dinner, and he invited many…” (14:16)

• “What man among you, if he has a hundred sheep…” (15:4)

• “Or what woman, if she has ten silver coins…” (15:8)

• “A man had two sons…” (15:11)

• “There was a rich man who had a manager” (16:1)

• “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple…” (16:19)

In contrast to those parables, when a real-life event happens, Luke often gives commentary of the context before Jesus speaks so that a clear distinction is made to indicate that those are real events. Here are a few examples:

• “It happened that when He went into the house…” (14:1)

• “While He was on the way to Jerusalem…” (17:11)

• “A ruler questioned Him, saying…” (18:18)

• “As Jesus was approaching Jericho…” (18:35)

• “And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury…” (21:1)

Those are real events. However, distinct contextual transitions like this were not made for the parable of Lazarus, indicating that Jesus was still in the process of continuing to speak in parables, as He was doing one after another. Because of these things, I do not see strong supporting evidence to say that Jesus was speaking literally of the rich man and Lazarus.

Another supporting fact for this being a parable is that it emulates an earlier Egyptian story written in the first to second century B.C. called The Second Story of Khamuas: Prince Khamuas and Si-Osiri. It’s a difficult story to track because of translation and required knowledge of Egyptian mythology and understanding that Amenti is the netherworld, and the fact that parts of the manuscript are unreadable due to age. However, here is the link to it, and another link to a summary of it.

The key elements of the story follow this pattern:

• A rich man is honored in burial while a poor man is dishonored in burial

• A reversal of shame and honor happens in the afterlife

• People are judged. Their deeds are weighed

• The rich man now suffers while the poor man is comforted near a divine figure

• A guide explains the reversal

• How you treat others now will be your level of reward or suffering later

• Once in the afterlife, you cannot reveal the things you see there to anyone on earth

These are the structural elements Jesus reworks in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Jesus used it because it was a familiar story to tell His parable, not because He was narrating an actual event. He gave the parable for the purpose of a moral lesson, not so that future theologians could create some foundational doctrine of the afterlife about it.

Yet even with that being said, in the Egyptian story, the rich man who did evil deeds was actually destroyed in the end while the other person’s soul went to heaven with the noble spirits. It says, “he who was found to have done more evil deeds than good ones was thrown (?) to Ama of the Lord of Amenti, (who) destroyed his soul (and) his body and did not allow him to breathe ever again.”

Of the issue of torment, the story says that bread and water were hung over people’s head’s but they were unable to reach it because others were digging pits beneath their feet. The ones digging pits were the ones who were cruelly or unjustly treated by that person so that in proportion to how a person is cruel to people on earth, their suffering is matched or catches up to them in the afterlife. It says, “They allowed (sic) that which had become of them on the earth to become of them again (?) [in Amenti].”

Here are a few other quotes:

“It was commanded to imprison (?) him in Amenti. He is that man that [you saw] with the bolt (?) of the gate of Amenti being fixed on his right eye. They were shutting and opening out on his eye, his mouth was open in loud lamentation. By the great god Osiris, Lord of Amenti, behold! I say to you upon earth: 'There shall be done] to you just as is being done to this poor man, there shall not be done to you according to which is being done to that great man,' and I know what will become of him.”

“He marvelled at [the things] he had seen in Amenti which weighed upon him heavily since he was not able to reveal (them) to [any man on earth.”

“The bolt of the door of the fifth hall was being fixed in the right eye of a man, who was praying and uttering loud lamentation.”

What was this bolt all about? It’s about the gate of the afterlife being repeatedly opened and shut upon the rich man’s eye, and it is torturous to him. The bolt is the hinge point of the gate and his eyelids have now symbolically become that door/gate. There is this repetitive and mechanical torment to his eye every time the gate opens and closes, it crushes and grinds his eye. But it is not a gate he can actually cross. He can’t go anywhere. He’s stuck where he is at. This is the torment in which he sees with his eyes (his spiritual perception) that he is shut out to the blessed realm.

This may be something similar to what Jesus was saying to when He said, “I say to you that many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt 8:11-12).

Luke’s account says it this way, “In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out” (Lk 13:28).

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, it says, “in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom” (Lk 16:22).

That right there is the torment: realizing that you have been shut out from the kingdom of heaven and it’s too late… There is a great chasm that is fixed in which none can cross over from one side to the other. The reality of this truth is tormenting being in this prison to await final punishment—to think of what your life could have been and the choices you could have made differently, and the truth you could have accepted while you had the opportunity on earth …but you didn’t…

However, this is not Hell—it is not the lake of fire. This is just Hades, the intermediate state. For this reason, people who believe in ECT can by no means prove ECT on the basis of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, even if they deny it as being a parable or take the most literal interpretation of it. Most Christians would agree on the basis of being Premillennial or Amillennial in their eschatological views that the final judgement has not happened yet—it happens at the end of “the thousand years” (Rev 20). Additionally, the internal evidence of the story also proves that this cannot be speaking of the final judgement of hell, since the rich man had just died and wanted to warn his brothers who were still on earth to not come to that place of torment. But if this were the final judgment, his brothers would not still be on earth.

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man was tormented by what his eyes saw as that relates to him being shut out of the kingdom of heaven, but he was also tormented by the flame of the fire. What is this fire? This fire emulates what the Egyptian story says about a person’s torment in the afterlife and how there was bread and water hung over their heads that they were unable to reach because others were digging pits at their feet. But that is just symbolic imagery that is interpreted later, as Si-Osiri says, ““Concerning those other men… whose food, water and bread is hung over them…
the kind of men that are on earth, whose life is before them, the god is digging a pit at their feet to prevent their finding it.
They came to Amenti…
They allowed that which had become of them on earth to become of them again in Amenti.”

In other words, the divine punishment is leaving a person to him or herself and their own evil hearts. The things that they pursued on earth to gratify their own desires but never attaining contentment and satisfaction, will be similar in the afterlife. That gnawing itch to do evil will still be in them, yet they will be unable to accomplish it, and it will torment them.

It says their “life was before them,” meaning, they continually saw what they wanted but could never grasp — like prosperity, security, and satisfaction. Something always blocked them, and their efforts to pursue it were frustrated. That is the futility of life that they had on earth, this always striving but never attaining, and that is the futility that will follow with them to the afterlife. The afterlife becomes a mirror of one’s true inner condition that cannot be escaped from: “They allowed that which had become of them on earth to become of them again in Amenti.”

That’s what the bread and water symbolize—unfulfilled desire. That is the agony of the afterlife in Amenti or Hades—never receiving the gratification of all the things you desire (whether they be evil things or good things). It’s deprivation. Afterall, that is a general description of what it’s like to be in prison—and that’s what Hades is—a prison. In this way, we could say that Hades is the hell you are making for yourself now—for those who do not follow after Jesus. For those who do not believe and follow after Jesus, the degree of their punishment will also vary depending upon how good or evil they live in this life.

Which do you think is more terrifying? Burning in a literal fire where the pain is so overwhelming that you can’t think of anything else but your pain? Or burning in a symbolic fire of the hell you made for yourself where the only thing you can think of is your own tormenting thoughts and desires? Depending on who you are, you may give a different answer.

However, this fact actually continues to prove my point that this is symbolic, since if the fire were physical, the pain would be so overwhelming that it would be impossible for the rich man to have a conversation with Abraham as he did, since he would be continually screaming from the pain.

But if this is a parable, why does Jesus name the poor man as Lazarus, while in the other parables, people don’t have names? It’s to bring Lazarus recognition. To name him is to honor him. The meaning of his name is also, “God helps.” Naming this poor man helps to bring across the message that Jesus was communicating—though the Pharisees disregarded the poor and outcasts of society, Jesus and His followers recognized them and gave honor to them because God cares about them to help them. Even so, there are no rules that say parables cannot have proper names of people in them. Abraham’s name could have also been used because he is the replacement for the divine figure mentioned in the Egyptian story, and Abraham was also well thought of as being a model for giving hospitality to strangers. Yet, not even Abraham would give hospitality or grant requests to anyone in Hades, which shows to us that the decisions we make in this life become an irreversible and inescapable reality when we die.

For more on Lazarus’ name and background information for understanding this parable, see this article. It also mentions other literature that existed during Jesus’ time that share the similar theme of divine reversal: Hypocrisy, Not Hell: The Polemic Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man | Rethinking Hell

Will Hess argues that this parable was a series of many parables that were actually Jewish in origin from the Mishnah, Gemara, and Shabbat (35:12 – 41:10). They were oral traditions passed down until they were later compiled and written down. Jesus took those Jewish parables and put His own spin to them. Jesus was a thoroughly Jewish man, and the Jewish audience that He directed this parable to would have recognized it immediately as one of their own Jewish parables. The parable of the rich man in the Gemara starts at 38:57 and it is very close to what Jesus said. Thus, if we acknowledge that as a parable, then it would also seem reasonable to acknowledge Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable as well.
Source: Doctrine of Hell – Week 3, The Church Split

Note: I decided to cover the Egyptian story in this article since that one may have predated all the other stories, it was freely accessible online, and it was the one I was able to find first. It also shows the difference between symbolic imagery and the interpretation of that imagery to direct our understanding in a similar way to interpret this parable.

Continuing on with the parable’s interpretation and moral meaning:

The rich man represents the Pharisees, and they called Abraham their father which is quite ironic, since they did not provide hospitality to the lower social class or to strangers. They did not walk in the ways of their so-called “father” Abraham. The end of Jesus’ story was a stirring rebuke to the Pharisees because the Pharisees had the writings and law of Moses and the prophets, yet they did not listen to what those writings and laws said or walk in that path. Even when Jesus performed miracles, raised people from the dead, and even was raised Himself from the dead, the Pharisees were so hard-hearted that they would not believe the truth. It was their self-seeking behavior that blinded them to the truth which would later cause them great suffering in Hades once they died. Jesus was warning them that their decisions now have consequences later.

Here are a few other observations:

Lazarus is located at “Abraham’s Bosom.” That is, in proximity to Abraham. Recall that when the thief died on the cross with Jesus, He told him that “today you shall be with me in Paradise” (Lk. 23:43). This is the same place in the afterlife for those who died with faith in God.

Notice also that although the rich man and Lazarus are experiencing different things in the afterlife, they are both within earshot, and they are both conscious enough to have a conversation. One could conclude that because of this, they are both in Hades. Whether you draw that conclusion or not, nonetheless, there is a great chasm fixed between the two areas in which no one can cross over from one side to the other. The point of this story is to be a moral lesson, not a geographical lesson on what you can and can’t do in the afterlife and what it looks like or who you are able to see. For this reason, we shouldn’t interpret all these things too literally to form some theological doctrine that says everyone in Hades can see those who are comforted in Paradise. We don’t truly know that. This is only visualized for us to communicate the moral lesson.

It would not be wise to take a parable as the foundation of one’s theology and then become dogmatic about it, especially since this story lacks the scientific reliability of repeatable data to verify its validity. Basically, we need other texts to form the basis of a theological position to be more sure of it, not just one proof-text that appears ambiguous. To have one parable as the foundation of your systematic theology is a shaky foundation at best. The supporting information and context within parables are not for the purpose of extrapolating new doctrines or spiritualizing truths from every detail. Parables are meant to teach one or a couple of main truths or lessons, and that’s the purpose. I really don’t think we should over-think this to form a dogmatic position of what the afterlife is going to be like.

So, what is this parable really about? What does it teach? What is Jesus trying to tell his audience? Well, given the elaborate background story that Jesus tells about the rich man and Lazarus, it seems to me that Jesus is teaching us that the roles were switched after both men died. Even Abraham in the story tells the rich man this.

It is a story of irony. It is a story of justice. It is a story that says you can’t undo the actions you did after you die. It is a story that conveys the responsibility of one’s actions here on earth and their consequences later on; and the consequences seem to be measured according to one’s actions or lack thereof when living on the earth. Lazarus was the poor man when he was living on earth and was in agony with his sores and his constant hunger, begging even for the crumbs from the table of the rich man, for whom the rich man didn’t provide for his needs. The implication here is that since the rich man neglected the needs of the poor man, when both men died, the rich man became poor and the poor man became rich. The rich man received an agony perhaps equivalent to the agony he neglected to remedy that was right in front of him while he was on the earth. Meanwhile, the poor man who was in agony then was now no longer in agony and was at Abraham’s bosom in Paradise. For this reason, I take the “flame” to be a symbolic word for God’s judgement on the rich man rather than it being used to convey something literal. The rich man’s thirst in the story was merely to convey that fact in a more vivid/emotional/imaginative way that the rich man was suffering agony.

The purpose of Jesus’ parable is not to make our imaginations run wild to come up with all the specifics of what Hades will actually be like. Rather, the purpose of Jesus’ parable is to warn people of the consequences of their sin. What they do or don’t do in this life will have a true effect upon them after they die, since God will bring all evil actions to justice in the end.

Now you can choose to take the literal interpretation, or you could take a symbolic interpretation through the eyes of Egyptian mythology, which likely predated and influenced Jewish oral tradition in this parable. However, I think there are many details that lack verifiable proof, and it would be unwise to be confidently sure about them. Solomon, the wisest man to have ever lived in his time, said that even he didn’t know. Solomon said:

“For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same. As one dies so dies the other; indeed, they all have the same breath and there is no advantage for man over beast, for all is vanity. 20 All go to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. 21 Who knows that the breath of man ascends upward and the breath of the beast descends downward to the earth?” (Ecclesiastes 3:19-21).

That’s where I’m at right now: who really knows? The Old Testament viewed the afterlife in a speculative sort of way since they just did not have enough information to prove anything. To them, the place of the dead was some kind of shadowy existence. They were content believing that so as not to produce definitive doctrinal truths about the afterlife. And you know what? If they were fine with that, so am I. We don’t need to prove what Hades is going to be like. We just need to warn people not to go there by getting right with God.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus was a moral lesson. That was the primary intention and the primary thing we should take away from it. It was teaching that our choices have real consequences, and that what we sow, we shall also reap. It's a story of justice and irony to motivate obedience. How we neglect other people's suffering or cause their suffering, we can expect that, according to Torah, we will receive that suffering back upon ourselves.