Do You See Lazarus?

I believe that Jesus told this parable as a polemic (condemnation) against the Pharisees regarding their unjust treatment of the poor and outcasts in their society. In doing so, he calls us to examine how we do the same in our world today.

Here is where I will be going with this parable. First, we will look at the wider context in the book of Luke leading up to Jesus’ parable. I think this is crucial to our understanding, and gives clarity to our understanding of Jesus’ harsh words against the Pharisees—context is extremely crucial. Second, I want to explain why I think this is a parable rather than a description of an historical event. Third, we will work our way through the parable, including an explanation to the meaning of the word Hades (ᾅδης). Finally, we will explore how this parable speaks to us today.

(1) Lukan Context

In Luke 4, after Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness, he went into the synagogue to speak. There we read, “The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:¹ ‘The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor’” (Luke 4:17–19).² Soon after, he declares, “Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (v. 21). The people in the synagogue who heard all this saw themselves as God’s chosen people; they were truly favoured, a people set apart to be holy. They assume that Jesus is a messianic hero who will restore the kingdom of Israel. But Jesus does quite the opposite and, very quickly, he is rejected.

You see, the good news of the kingdom was for the poor, the Gentiles, the outcasts of society. In this kingdom, “outsiders” become “insiders.” The grace and favour of God is much bigger, and far-reaching, than for just the “insiders,” and the Pharisees took this as offensive. In 5:30–32, they complained and asked Jesus, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” Why do you heal the sick, give the poor dignity and honour, hang out with the prostitutes—Jesus, why are you such a friend of sinners? Jesus answered them, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” This angers the Pharisees, because these “Gentiles” only make the people of God impure, corrupted, unfavourable and contaminated. This is what begins the prolonged conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees that we see leading up to our parable.³

Then in the first half of chapter 16, Jesus tells The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (vv. 1–13), which “deals primarily with the right and wrong use of money.”⁴ Even though this parable was addressed to the disciples, it is said that “the Pharisees, who loved money, heard all of this and were sneering at Jesus” (v. 14). The Pharisees were rich and they knew it, and Jesus comes in direct conflict with it and challenges their hearts and love of money. It seems entirely appropriate then, that this story is a condemnation against the “social exclusiveness of the Pharisees and their love of money.”⁵

Then in the verses just prior to our parable, we are reminded of the good news of the kingdom, and that “everyone is forcing their way into it” (v. 16)—the “outsiders” are all flooding into the kingdom. Along with this, Jesus mentions the eternality of the Law (v. 17)—our OT Scripture. This is important to remember, and nicely sets up the stage for our parable—we will return to this later.

(2) Parable or History?

This story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is often debated because of the “unique naming of Lazarus.”⁶ The claim is that since no other parable uses an actual name, Jesus must be referring to a real person in a historical event.⁷ However, the name Lazarus comes from the Hebrew name ‘Eli'ezar which means God helps. Lazarus was “poor and miserable, but God is still on his side.”⁸ Thus, the significance is placed on the meaning of the name Lazarus rather than the fact of his naming; this will become clearer as we work through our parable.⁹ The Rich Man, in contrast, did not receive a name, which is most likely “Jesus’ way of inviting [the Pharisees] to provide their own!”¹⁰

In addition, Luke 16:1 starts with the exact same words (“there was a rich man...”) as in our parable, “There was a rich man...” (v. 19a). It should be noted that Jesus uses very similar phrases to introduce many of his other Lukan parables (12:16—“a certain rich man,” 14:16—“a certain man,” 15:11—“there was a man”).¹¹ For these reasons, it is much more likely this is a parable. Because it’s likely this is a parable, we need to be careful we don’t place too much importance on the details and imagery. For example, when we read The Parable of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1–7) or The Parable of the Sower (Luke 8:1–15), we don’t read them as stories giving us teaching on correct agricultural practices (I sure hope not!). In the same way, when we read The Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14–30 ESV), we don’t take from that parable teaching on correct methods of investing our money. When we read parables, we must seek to understand the main point or theme of the parable, in its original context, while holding the imagery and details very loosely. Only then can we truly be impacted by the main theme.

(3a) The Parable (Part 1)

This parable is layered with several cultural points of relevance to the Middle Eastern audience. In the first three verses, we are introduced to the Rich Man (Dives).¹² The Rich Man is filthy rich, and he flaunts it with how he dresses “in purple and fine linen” (16:19). Purple clothing was “extremely expensive, and only the truly wealthy could afford it.”¹³ Even though wearing white clothes “indicated membership among the elite, they were regarded as modest” compared to purple clothes.¹⁴ Furthermore, in using some parabolic humour, Jesus portrays the Rich Man not only flaunting his outer clothes, but also wearing fine linen. This fine linen (βύσσος) “refers to quality Egyptian cotton used for the best underwear.”¹⁵ He even wore Tommy Hilfiger underwear! Also, he “feasted sumptuously every day” (v. 19b ESV). The portrait Jesus paints here is in light of The Parable of the Lost Son in 15:11–32. If you remember that parable, to celebrate the returning son, the father hosted a large party and ordered a “fattened calf” (15:23) to feed all the guests. The Rich Man lived “in an economy where even the rich could only afford to kill a calf occasionally,” but for him, it was a daily occasion.¹⁶

In extreme contrast to the Rich Man, verse 20 says that “at his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores.” That Lazarus “was laid” (ἐβέβλητο) at the Rich Man’s gate reflects the common practice of community care in the Middle East.¹⁷ Since he was the only one in town who could meet the needs of Lazarus, every day the people in the community would carry Lazarus to the gate of his estate with the hope that he may eventually show compassion and care, but none is given.¹⁸ Just like the Lost Son “longed” to eat pig food (15:16), verse 21 says that Lazarus longed to eat the food that “fell from the rich man’s table.” The usage of the verb “longed” (ἐπιθυμέω) refers to “something a person wants but is unable to have.”¹⁹ So, this poor man is suffering from hunger and pain, and then he associated with the dogs who came and licked his open sores.²⁰ It is important to notice here, the Rich Man is in a place of comfort and peace, and Lazarus in a place of torment and grief.

Then the parable reveals the deaths of Lazarus and the Rich Man in verse 22. It is implied that the Rich Man is honoured in receiving a burial but Lazarus was shown disgrace by not being buried.²¹ In the Jewish mind, for one not to receive a burial, and to be “left exposed as carrion for scavenger animals, was identical to bearing the curse of God.”²² In such conditions, Lazarus appears to be “a person whom God did not help,” while the Rich Man is honoured by receiving a family burial.²³ The Rich Man is in honour and Lazarus is in shame. The parable follows each man unto death, and we find out in verse 23 that the Rich Man finds himself in Hades in torment and the poor man in comfort.

(3b) Meaning of Hades (ᾅδης)

Hades—let’s talk about this curious word for a minute. Hades is an English rendering of the actual Greek word. In the NT, there are differences in the way the word Hades has been translated. The KJV translates the word as “hell” and there are some who would teach, therefore, that this parable is giving us important details on the nature of hell. However, most of the major English translations have chosen to use the word Hades (TNIV, NASB, ESV, NRSV), and some translations such as the NLT and CEB, chose to use the descriptive phrase “the place of the dead.”²⁴

Hades (ᾅδης) is used a total of 10 times in the New Testament (NT), and it always refers to “the place of the dead.”²⁵ If Jesus were to use this parable to describe what happens to the wicked in hell (i.e. after the final judgment), he would likely have used the word Gehenna (γέεννα) or another kind of metaphor instead.²⁶ For example, Jesus says in Matthew 10:28, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy (ἀπολλύω) both soul and body in hell [Gehenna].”²⁷

In addition, the parable reveals that the Rich Man’s five brothers are still alive. And so, the final resurrection or final judgment has not taken place yet. So theologically, this parable is not likely talking about the fate of the wicked in hell, which the Bible clearly teaches happens after the final resurrection and judgment. Hades is simply the place of the dead, a holding place, where all people, righteous and unrighteous, wait for their resurrection.

The Greek word Hades comes from the Hebrew word Sheol (שְׁאוֹל) which is also understood as the realm of the dead. The OT’s overall usage of Sheol reveals that, upon death, it is a place where all people, righteous and unrighteous, go to. As Genesis 3:19 indicates, we are all created from dust, “and to dust [we] shall return.” Now, the “New Testament usage of hades does not go beyond the Old Testament meaning of sheol.”²⁸ One example of this is in Acts 2:23–32, on the day of Pentecost, when Peter stands up and preaches about the death and resurrection of Jesus. He boldly proclaimed, “the resurrection of the Messiah, that he was not abandoned to the realm of the dead [Hades], nor did his body see decay” (v. 31). Jesus died and went to Hades (the grave). He was buried, and his body would have decayed away there had it not been for his resurrection, when God raised him from the dead. Hades is not hell, but simply the place of the dead where all humanity go to upon death until their resurrection—which is the setting of our parable. I don’t think this parable is telling us anything about hell; rather, it’s about life here and now.

(3c) The Parable (Part 2)

With this understanding of Hades, we should note that in the parable, both the Rich Man and Lazarus are in Hades. In Hades, the Rich Man is in torment, and sees Lazarus far away comforted at Abraham’s bosom/side. The Rich Man longs to receive comfort from his torment. We need to remember that this this is the great reversal of their situation before they died when the Rich Man was in honour and Lazarus was in shame. Now the Rich Man is in shame, and the poor man in honour. Let’s remember that because we are dealing with a parable, we need to hold loosely this imagery of “torment” and “comfort” in Hades. This parable is the only place in Scripture where the language of “torment” and “comfort” are associated with Hades. Because we do not find this kind of teaching on Hades anywhere else in Scripture, we cannot press the imagery too much. What I would suggest as more important is to notice the “great reversal.” For the original audience to hear this feature of the story would have been shocking. A Jew saw wealth and prosperity as a blessing from God, and poverty as a curse. So, this “great reversal” would have come as a surprise.

In verse 24, the Rich Man cries out to Abraham, his father, for help. Quite ironically, the Rich Man “assumes that Abraham is still his ‘father.’” He also knows Lazarus by name—whom he has never bothered to help—and he assumes Lazarus is still there to “carry out errands on behalf of a wealthy man like himself.”²⁹ The fact that the Rich Man calls Abraham “Father” in this situation is crazy given the “long-standing tradition regarding Abraham as a model of hospitality to strangers” (Gen. 18:1–15), and he continues to argue from his family connection, the position of privilege, throughout the parable (16:24, 27, 30).³⁰ His desperate request for relief and comfort are rejected for two reasons:

First, his request is rejected because of the “great reversal.” The Rich Man lived a life of comfort, and now he is in agony; Lazarus “received bad things, but now he is comforted” (v. 25). Look at Luke 6:20–26 (the “great reversal” foreshadowed). In summary, Jesus says:

• “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” but “Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort” (vv. 20, 24)
• “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied” but “Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry” (vv. 21a, 25a)
• “Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh” but “Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep” (vv. 21b, 25b)
  
  

The second reason the Rich Man’s plea is rejected is because “a great chasm has been set in place” (v. 26), and no one can cross over from either side. The great reversal is forever irreversible. I believe this speaks to the finality of death—in other words, there are no second chances for repentance beyond death and prior to resurrection.

After his request for comfort and relief is rejected by Abraham, and any chance of his own escape also denied, the Rich Man cries out in even more desperation (vv. 27–28), “I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family” to “warn [my five brothers], so that they will not also come to this place of torment.” Abraham refuses to grant this request and says that his five brothers should listen to “Moses and the Prophets” (v. 29). The phrase “Moses and the Prophets” is simply referring to our OT scriptures and, if you remember, it also “ties in the immediate context of the parable in verses 16–18 about the [eternality] of the Law.”³¹ Notice that this parable is sandwiched between statements made on the eternality and reliability of the Holy Scriptures?

Clearly, the Holy Scriptures were all the brothers needed to point them in the right direction. Then the Rich Man responds, “No…if someone from the dead goes to them, they will [surely] repent” (v. 30). He is convinced that his brothers would repent if they witnessed Lazarus come back from the dead. But Abraham still refuses because, “if [the brothers] do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (v. 31, emphasis added).

The Rich Man and his brothers were consumed with their wealth and pleasure and failed to care for Lazarus at his gate. Nothing could save his brothers; not even a returned Lazarus, if they do not heed to the teachings of Scripture. The Scriptures are “very much concerned with the state of the poor.”³² Isaiah 58:6–7 is a prime example when it says, “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter—when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?”³³

Amos “condemned Israel to be exiled for selling the [poor and needy] for a pair of sandals [Amos 2:6]; and even more to the point, Ezekiel condemned Judah to destruction for being worse than Sodom. Ezekiel says [that Sodom was] ‘arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and [the] needy’ (Ezek. 16:49).”³⁴

True “children of Abraham are those who obey Moses and the prophets and share their wealth with the poor.”³⁵ In other words, in Jesus’ harsh condemnation against the Pharisees, he is telling them that if they do not take care of the “outsiders” and reach out to the sinners in their society, they are no longer children of Abraham and they no longer have any place in the kingdom of God. Ouch! Those are extremely harsh words!

(4) Conclusion—Now, how do we apply this parable to our own lives?

Here are a couple of things for us to consider. First, we need to recognize that we are the Rich Man in the story. Remember, the Rich Man did not receive a name, which is likely Jesus’ way of inviting us to provide our own name—much like, “fill in your name here, along the dotted line.” I am the Rich Man. I came across a story of a man named Albert Schweitzer, from Europe, in the early 1900s, a successful university professor and organ player. He left everything and went to Africa as a missionary doctor. When people asked him why he left his high position of status in Europe and went to Africa, he pointed to this parable and said it seemed to speak “directly to Europeans: ‘We are [the Rich Man]…Out there in the colonies, however, sits wretched Lazarus.’”³⁶ As a way of going after the “heart of the matter,” the parable assumes we are all the Rich Man.

Second, the parable is going after our heart condition as all parables do. “What the parable attacks is a certain kind of wealth [one that we all must wrestle with]; the kind that does not see poverty and suffering, [pain and brokenness in our midst].” This parable “insists that the poor are [our] brothers and sisters…and that the injustice of the juxtaposition of wealth and poverty cannot be tolerated.”³⁷ The question we need to ask ourselves is, “Can you see Lazarus?” Who is he in your life? Can you see the pain and hurt in the eyes of the person who shares with you that their marriage is on the brink of failure? Can you see the family down the street from your house who is struggling to make a living? Can you see the person who has no friends and just needs someone to talk to? Can you see the lives affected by the many natural disasters, or the ongoing crisis in Syria – do we just flip through our news outlets and these stories of disaster without being affected? Can you see Lazarus? “The ability to see is the mark of Christian Discipleship.”³⁸

If we can see Lazarus, only then can we be the good news to the poor and broken-hearted. Only then can we enter into their pain and hurt and truly offer them “good news.” Only then can we bring others into the kingdom of God. “Any gospel that is not good news to the poor is not the gospel of Jesus Christ.”³⁹ May we learn to see Lazarus in our lives, and always be the good news of the gospel to them. In closing, I want to show you a music video by Brandon Heath called "Give Me Your Eyes" I have been greatly convicted by the words of this song, and I would encourage us all to make this song as our prayer.

---

¹Isaiah 61:1-2
²Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are from the Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright ©1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide. www.zondervan.com The “NIV” and “New International Version” are trademarks registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica, Inc.™ Later we read that “Jesus traveled about from one town and village to another, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom of God” (8:1).
³Simon, a Pharisee, had invited Jesus over for dinner, and a “sinful woman” came in and anointed Jesus feet with expensive perfume (7:36–50). Jesus asks Simon, “Do you see this woman?” (v. 44). Jesus is invited to dine at another Pharisee’s house in 11:37–12:1; with three “woes” in verses 41–43, Jesus condemns the way they treat the poor, the double standard of their tithing, and their prideful way of being “first-class” in society. Also in 14:1–4 we read the story of Jesus, at a Pharisee’s house, healing the man in their midst who was suffering from dropsy. Then Jesus tells two parables (14:8–11 and 14:16–24) in which he condemns their social exclusiveness, and teaches what true hospitality looks like. The Pharisees complain amongst themselves (15:2). It is very interesting that almost all of these conflicts occur around the dinner table, which sheds a fascinating light on the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus.
⁴Kim Papaioannou, The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013), 114.
⁵Ibid., 115.
⁶Darrell L. Bock, “The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus and the Ethics of Jesus,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 40 (Fall 1997): 64.
⁷Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Revised and Expanded (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2006), 534.
⁸Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), 429.
⁹Grant R. Osborne, 534.
¹⁰Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997), 606.
¹¹Edward Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011), 149. Luke 12:16; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; 16:19; 18:1–2; 19:11–12; 20:9.
¹²The Rich Man is “often called ‘Dives,’ because that’s the Latin word for ‘rich.’” N.T.Wright, Luke For Everyone (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 200.
¹³Kenneth E. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2008), 382.
¹⁴Joel B. Green, 605.
¹⁵Ian H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster, 1978), 635.
¹⁶Joel B. Green, 605–606.
¹⁷Kenneth Bailey, 383.
¹⁸Ibid.
¹⁹Ibid., 384.
²⁰It is unknown whether the licking of Lazarus’ sores by the dogs was a form of continued abuse (Joel Green) or one of relief to ease the pain (Kenneth Bailey). Discussion surrounds the usage of the word ἀλλά and whether it functions as a similarity or contrast (e.g. are the dogs in continuity or contrast with Dives’ situation?).
²¹Joel B. Green, 607. But he was honoured in the ‘intermediate state.’
²²Joel B. Green, 607.
²³Kenneth Bailey, 383; italics in original.
²⁴The 1984 NIV used the word “hell,” but they include a footnote in which they give the actual word used, which is Hades.
²⁵Matt. 11:23; 16:18; Luke 10:15; 16:23; Acts 2:27, 31; Rev. 1:18; 6:8; 20:13, 14.
²⁶Matt. 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6.
²⁷See also Luke 12:4–5
²⁸Edward Fudge, 152; italics in original.
²⁹Joel B. Green, 608.
³⁰Ibid.
³¹Kim Papaioannou, 129.
³²Joel B. Green, “Eschatology and the Nature of Humans: A Reconsideration of Pertinent Biblical Evidence,” Science & Christian Belief 14 (2002): 42.
³³Micah 6:8 & James 1:27
³⁴Rob McRay, “Moses, Jesus, and Fudge: How Edward Fudge (and Biblical Theology) Changed What I Preach about Hell,” in A Consuming Passion: Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of Edward Fudge, eds. Christopher M. Date and Ron Highfield (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015), 47.
³⁵Klyne Snodgrass, 430.
³⁶Klyne Snodgrass, 433.
³⁷Ibid.
³⁸Ibid., 434.
³⁹Ibid.

Bibliography

Bailey, Kenneth E. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2008.

Bauckham, Richard. “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels.” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 225–246.

Bock, Darrell L. “The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus and the Ethics of Jesus,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 40 (Fall 1997): 63–72.

Fudge, Edward W. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2011.

Green, Joel B. “Eschatology and the Nature of Humans: A Reconsideration of Pertinent Biblical Evidence,” Science & Christian Belief 14 (2002): 33–50.

___________. The Gospel of Luke, NICNT. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1997.

Harris, Murray J. “The New Testament View of Life After Death,” Themelios 11.2 (January 1986): 47–52.

Hock, Ronald F. “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31,” Journal of Biblical Literature 106 (Sept. 1987): 447–463.

Knight, George W. “Luke 16:19–31: The Rich Man and Lazarus,” Review and Expositor 94 (1997): 277–283.

Kreitzer, Larry. “Luke 16:19–31 and 1 Enoch 22,” Expository Times 103 (1992): 139–142.

Marshall, Ian H. The Gospel of Luke. Exeter, U.K.: Paternoster, 1978.

McRay, Rob. “Moses, Jesus, and Fudge: How Edward Fudge (and Biblical Theology) Changed What I Preach about Hell,” in A Consuming Passion: Essays on Hell and Immortality in Honor of Edward Fudge, eds. Christopher M. Date and Ron Highfield. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015.

Middleton, Richard J. A New Heaven and a New Earth: Reclaiming Biblical Eschatology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2014.

New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 Vols., ed. Moisés Silva. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014.

Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, Revised and Expanded. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2006.

Papaioannou, Kim. The Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2013.

Regalado, Ferdinand O. “The Jewish Background of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus,” Asia Journal of Theology 16 (2002): 341–348.

Snodgrass, Klyne. Stories with Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008.

Wright, N.T. Luke For Everyone. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004.

Wright, Tony. “Death, the Dead and the Underworld in Biblical Theology, Part 2,” Churchman 122 (2008): 114.