THERE WAS A rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So 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.’
25“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. 26And 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.’
27“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31“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.’”
Original Meaning
THIS PARABLE IS unique to Luke and is the only one to name any of its characters. The naming of the poor man as Lazarus and the failure to name the rich man personalizes the level of concern for the poor man, while making clear that the rich man is a representative figure. God cares for each poor person and is fully aware of their plight. The rich man could be any rich individual.
An important feature often discussed about this passage is whether it truly is a parable. Some avoid identifying it as a parable for fear that it removes the precision about the teaching on the afterlife, since a parable is more pictorial and representative than a real story. However, the fundamental theological affirmations about the afterlife—for example, that once one receives his or her judgment, one cannot alter that position for eternity—are true regardless of the genre classification.
The story does differ from other parables in not being about a repeatable everyday situation, but rather is a specific story. In this sense it is like the parable of the good Samaritan. Still, the account does not recount a historical interchange between a specific rich man and a specific Lazarus, but pictures it. The details of the discussion in the afterlife, including the rich man’s ability to engage Abraham in discussion, are apocalyptic-like features in the account that show its rhetorical, parabolic, and symbolic character. Yet realities about accountability before God are portrayed.
The account comes in three parts: the situation before death (vv. 19–21), the situation in the afterlife (vv. 22–23), and comments about that situation (vv. 24–31). In addition, the third part comes in two portions: the discussion of getting Lazarus’s help and the attempt to warn the rich man’s brothers. The warnings show what God looks for in a person during this life and how fixed one’s position is after death. Two themes dominate: the idea of divine evaluation in the afterlife and the hardness of heart that cannot be overcome even by resurrection. But just as important to the parable is what God evaluates. Our service to others shows something about our loyalty to God.
The first portion of the account contrasts the condition of the rich man with that of Lazarus. The man is very wealthy. He lives in a home with a gate and wears clothes made with purple dye, one of the touches of luxury in that era.1 He dresses in fine linen, a description of the quality of his undergarments.2 Lazarus, a man with nothing, lies at his gate, begging, full of sores, longing to get the crumbs from the rich man’s table, and having his sores licked by the wild dogs on the streets. This licking is significant, since it makes Lazarus ceremonially unclean.3 His situation is as tragic as the rich man’s is sumptuous.
But death is the great equalizer, even reverser, since after death the one thing that counts is the human heart. Possessions and status symbols are left behind. What God considers is not written down with numbers and dollar signs. Lazarus dies and is welcomed into divine favor—what the text calls “Abraham’s side” (Gk. “Abraham’s bosom”). He is in the place of blessing. The rich man dies and is buried, but ends up “in hell” (Gk. Hades); in torment, far away from Lazarus, the roles are reversed.4 Lazarus is in; the rich man is out. The standards of the afterlife are different from those of the appearances of this world.
The rich man looks up and sees Abraham and Lazarus together. He calls to the great patriarch of the Jewish faith and asks for Lazarus to be sent to give him relief from the heat and his agony. Several points are worth noting here. (1) The heat of torment may well depict the intense agony of what it means to be confined to the underworld, knowing that God exists and knowing that one is not in heaven. (2) The rich man knows who Lazarus is. During the time on earth, he knew the poor man was out there, had needs, and even knew his name! (3) The rich man’s view of Lazarus has not changed since his death. He still views him as beneath him, as someone who might to be sent to give him relief. This reveals the lack of heart in the rich man.
Abraham must give the reply for eternity. Heaven is not like earth. He points out how the tables were reversed during life on earth: The rich man had all and Lazarus had nothing; the rich man had comfort and Lazarus coped with torment. In this reversed condition, there is one other crucial feature. “A great chasm,” an uncrossable gulf, prevents any crossing over from one arena to the other. In effect, Abraham notes that there was a time when the rich man could have done for Lazarus what he is asking that Lazarus do for him now, but he refused to give Lazarus aid. What he measured in the past is being measured to him, only with one crucial difference: The current set-up is permanent.
Understanding that all is lost for him, he intercedes for his five brothers, whose attitude is similar to his own. He pleads for Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them. Abraham’s reply here is crucial to understanding what was said both to the rich man earlier and to Luke’s readers: “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.” In other words, if one wants to understand what God asks of his people in terms of caring for others, one need only read the Old Testament. A warning is useless, since the Scripture is clear on what God desires. The texts in view here are passages like Deuteronomy 14:28–29; 15:1–3; 7:12; 22:1–2; 23:19; 24:7; 25:13–14; Isaiah 3:14–15; 5:7–8; 10:1–3; 32:6–7; 58:3, 6–7, 10; Jeremiah 5:26–28; 7:5–6; Ezekiel 18:12–18; 33:15; Amos 2:6–8; 5:11–12; 8:4–6; Micah 2:1–2; 3:1–3; 6:10–11; Zechariah 7:9–10; Malachi 3:5. God’s Word has made clear what he desires. Our devotion to him is seen in our care for others. Jesus calls this “the great commandment”—love God with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:28–34).
There is irony in this reply. What Abraham refuses for the brothers is accomplished for the readers of the parable by warnings issued for them. We hear a person in torment warn us to respond with compassion to those around us. In this parable, the grave speaks so that we might hear.
The rich man persists. He insists with Abraham that if one were sent from the dead to warn them, they will repent. Something spectacular and supernatural will change people’s minds. Abraham’s reply is also revealing, for it shows the depth of hardheartedness: Even if one rises from the dead, they will still not be convinced! Those reading the parable in the Gospel, knowing the story of Jesus, are aware just how true this remark is. Jesus’ resurrection convinced only some that God was working through him. A hard heart produces eyes that do not see the activity of God and ears that do not heed his warnings, much less the revelation he graciously reveals. The parable closes with a dark and tragic note about how humanity often misses the opportunities God makes available to them.
Bridging Contexts
THE PARABLE RAISES key questions about the afterlife. What is hell like? How permanent is it? How should we read the imagery here? It also discusses relational values and what God desires of us. What does he expect of the wealthy? How does he wish us to treat one another, especially in areas where people have needs? How will he evaluate the stewardship of our lives? These features reflect basic ethical commitments God has and desires his people to possess.
I have already argued that this unit is a parable, but that does not mean that it should be read as mere story. It depicts a tragic and serious reality. The coming judgment is permanent for those rejected by God. Eternal torment is in store for those who know that God exists but have failed to respond to him in this life. Christians debate, however, whether to take the afterlife imagery literally (as if Hades is a place of fire) or more metaphorically (as a picture of a place of discomfort and torment). They also debate whether such a condition can be reversed (as the Catholic teaching on purgatory suggests) or is temporary (by arguing that the lost are annihilated).5
For all its imagery, this text suggests that suffering in the afterlife is permanent (“a great chasm” that cannot be crossed). Once entered, we cannot escape hell, and the torment there is painful and conscious. I prefer to read the imagery of “fire” in the afterlife as metaphorical of conscious suffering (most fires consume!), though the difference between the metaphorical and the literal views is slight, since both argue that the judgment is real and permanent. These images are among the most tragic and serious warnings in the Bible. Our culture avoids such ideas by denying their truth. That is a fateful gamble to make, for if one is wrong, the consequences are devastating. Refusal to respond exacts a great price.
One troubling aspect of a text like this is that it appears that God’s evaluation of our lives is based on works. But this is not the way to understand the text in light of the entirety of Scripture. The ethical call of God reveals what he expects of people. Other portions of Scripture reveal the way God enables us to accomplish this calling and to reflect his will. Enablement is graciously provided by the Spirit to those who trust in him for their spiritual well-being. In other words, what God calls for here is possible because he gives us the resources to have a compassionate and caring heart.
Furthermore, the test of a heart that loves God, which is the most basic ethical command of Scripture, is that it heeds his words. How we relate to God vertically influences how we relate to people horizontally. Thus this parable states the goal in terms of our relationships and their concrete ethical expression on earth. Others texts make clear that such a response is the product of hearts that have been gifted with the blessing of the Spirit through Christ (Acts 4:32–37; 1 Tim. 6:6–18). If we love God, we must respond compassionately to his call to treat others sensitively. For if God judges for such things, those who love him should not do what he judges people for.
Contemporary Significance
THE APPLICATION OF this text reinforces the application of 16:1–13. God calls the rich to share their resources with generosity. The parable is designed to have us reflect on how we respond to people like Lazarus. Though illustrated negatively, the parable is about defining compassion. A compassionate heart sees need and moves to help. Failure to do so is a failure of great ethical proportions. If we find it difficult to help someone in need, then this parable exposes the hard quality in our heart that God desires to soften.
Implications of a text like this touch on lifestyle choices we make and the way we use resources. But it is important to appreciate that aid to those in need is not limited to simply throwing money at people, even though in the short term that may be necessary. There are numerous organizations like World Vision, Samaritan’s Purse, STEP, and local food kitchens whose commitment is to aid and educate those in poverty so they can stand on their own. Other institutions in our culture, including some run by governments, need support because they give children a chance to get out of debilitating backgrounds. These organizations usually need personal time donated to meet what is otherwise lacking, for the children with whom they work often lack roots or come from broken families. The people touched by these organizations need a stable environment, where there is emotional support to undertake what can be an arduous road to restoration.
Expressions of compassion in contexts of need is not merely a matter of money, but of true compassion. Had the rich man merely thrown crumbs at Lazarus, that would have been only a first step. Lazarus would have needed much more care to reach restoration. The positive example in Scripture of giving more than mere resources is the example of the good Samaritan, who fully involved himself with the man who fell among the thieves. This text challenges each one of us to ask: “What am I doing?”
The principles called for here are also illustrated in the New Testament letters (e.g., James 2:14–16, which illustrates a living faith). At the level of the local church, one way to test a community’s sensitivity to such issues is to ask what ministries the church supports that are targeted to these kinds of needs. Our goal should be something more than an annual Christmas or Thanksgiving drive. God wants continual involvement in the lives of needy people.
The issue of accountability in the end is also an important application to make in terms of forming our values. If God is gracious and calls us to be gracious in turn, then we should respond to his grace by reflecting those attributes. Such a response to him indicates our desire to reflect his character to the world. As Jesus said earlier in this Gospel, disciples are to be merciful, because he is merciful (6:36).
The parable also portrays the stubborn nature of sin. Apparently not even the resurrection is a good enough witness for some. Therefore, we need not be surprised when some do not respond to God’s call. The failure to see what God is doing applies not just to failing to see his revelation, but failing to see the evidence he leaves behind that points to his revelation.
Finally, one can point to the parable’s underscoring of the sufficiency of all of Scripture. Jesus’ parable clearly reveals that God’s ethical call is set forth in Moses and the Prophets. They are more important than any miracles God could offer, since it is his voice that speaks. Today we have the benefit of even more revelation. To Moses and the Prophets one can add the Evangelists and the apostles, not to mention Jesus’ own teaching. If we are to see what God wills, here is the place to find it. Scripture is worthy not just of our reading and study, but of contemplation as well. Through it we see the heart of God unto salvation.