The Rich Man and Lazarus

Source and parallels

This parable is unique to Luke (16:19-31) among the four gospel books in the New Testament. This is not to say that there are no parallels about the great fortune reversal between this life and afterlife in extrabiblical, non-canonical and canonical sources. In fact, Snodgrass detailed no less than twenty such sources from early and later Jewish writings as well as Greco-Roman writings. The most cited example includes an Egyptian folktale about Setme whose son Si-Osire soothes his grief over a poor man’s unremarkable burial with an otherworldly vision of fortune reversal [1-6]. A Judaism story of note casts the fate of a rich tax collector named Bar Ma‛jan and a poor teacher of the law in a similar light [2, 3]. Another Jewish legend tells of a rich and godless woman in Hades who relays via a boy a message of repentance to the living husband [4]. Intertestamental writings such as 1 Enoch 103:5-104:6 and 4 Ezra 7:75-99 also warn rich sinners and comfort the righteous poor with blessing reversal in afterlife [1]. Several “dead man talking” tales from Greco-Roman writings recount the greater humiliation and punishment of the rich after death [1]. Later Jewish writings (e.g., Exod. Rab.31.5 and Midr. Ps. 46.1) promise the poor righteous with posthumous reward while castigating the wicked rich to eternal torment [1].

Another apparent parallel was discussed in relation to the Lazarus resurrection story in John 11 [1, 4, 5]. By all accounts, the two Lazarus are fortuitous namesake but not the same person and any illusion to establish such a connection is without merit and, at best, forced [1, 4, 5]. The connection between Abraham and Lazarus (meaning Eliezer) in the parable and Abraham and his servant Eliezer in Gen.15 is more credible and well known to the Jewish audience [3].

What to make of such parallel writings about fortune reversal in afterlife? While it is certainly within the realm of possibility that some tales may be borrowed and adapted from another, it is equally, if not more, plausible that human heart is universally wired by God to view life’s fortune and misfortune with a dialectical perspective. There are a number of canonical passages that teach the reversal of various sorts [1]. Jesus himself was a master communicator in teaching the reversal between the humble and haughty, first and last, leader and servant, plentiful and paltry, gain and loss, weeping and laughing, and poor and rich. There is reason to think that this refashioning of prevalent folktales was done by Jesus himself and that an allusion to Jesus’ own death and resurrection is unmistakable [4].

As a side note, there is a cyclical fortune reversal in the Chinese legend about a certain man living near the country’s border. One day, his son lost their only horse. The villagers came to console the family. But the old man cracked wise in saying that such a loss can turn into a gain of blessing. Before long, the lost horse returned with another, wild horse, instantly doubling the family’s horse stock. Thus the well-wishing villagers came to congratulate the family. But the old man cracked wise gain by saying that such a sudden gain of fortune may spell misfortune. Before long, the son fell off the wild horse and broke one of his legs. The compassionate villagers gathered at the house and listened to what the old man had to say this time. It may not be a bad thing either, thus said the old man. Before long, the country was at war with an intruding army and many young men had to be enlisted to fight the war. But the man with a broken leg was sparred of enlistment and potential casualty.

Parable pairs

In general, Luke’s account of Jesus’ parables seems to have a favorite theme on money and wealth, often contrasting the rich and the poor. Examples include the rich fool (Luke 12:13-21) and the parable pairs in Luke 16, namely, the unjust steward (Luke 16:1-13) and the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). While Luke apparently has arranged many of Jesus’ parables without much regard to the historical and ministerial context (e.g., the odd verse 18 in the middle of Luke 16), it is agreed by many scholars that the two parables in Luke 16 are like a parable pair teaching prudent handling of wealth with both positive (first parable) and negative example (second parable) [1, 2, 4, 5]. Luke’s frequent portrayal of wicked rich men should not be misconstrued as his decry of personal wealth, but instead, taken as his or rather Jesus’ emphasis on the proper handling of wealth. Luke’s subsequent account of Zacchaeus in Luke 19, the rich tax collector at Jericho, also bears out this point [2].

Snodgrass points out that several “hooks” exist between this parable and that of the Prodigal Son, not to connote the same meaning but to assist the listeners: the distress desire by Lazarus and the prodigal, the contact with impure animal (dog or pig), celebratory meals after the prodigal’s return versus the rich man’s daily extravagant feast, Abraham with Lazarus versus the father of the prodigal, five brothers of the rich man versus the elder brother of the prodigal [1]. Notwithstanding the parallels, it is difficult to see this parable and the Prodigal Son as pairs, despite their close literary juxtaposition (Luke 15 vs. 16). It is more plausible, however, that the three parables of lost sheep, lost coin and two lost sons in Luke 15 form a trio of parables on the lostness of mankind [1].

Context

Other than the oddly placed verse 18, the intervening verses 14-17 between the parable pairs in Luke 16 are the immediate context. According to Snodgrass, “the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus demonstrates the validity of both vv.14-15 and vv.16-17. What human value so highly—money and luxurious living—is abominable to God [vv.14-15], and the Law and the prophets are still valid for the rich man’s brothers, even though the kingdom has arrived” [1]. Evidently, the audience of Jesus include not only his disciples (verse 1), but others as well (such as the money-loving Pharisees, verse 14). The larger context of Jesus ministry in Luke’s account has a lot more diverse listeners, including, for example, the tax collectors and sinners (15:1), many people (14:25), a prominent Pharisee (14:1), passers by (13:22), many thousands (12:1). The religious and the powerful of the day are often the foes of Jesus, whereas the underprivileged, the social outcast, and the despised sinners of the time are often friends of Jesus. Thus, Luke’s abridged version of the beatitude (6:21-26) pits the poor against the rich, the hungry against the well fed, the weeping against the laughing. It is in this ministerial context of Jesus and the literary, parabolic context with the unjust steward (16:1-13) that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches the biblical wisdom of prudent handling of wealth.

Dynamics of the Parable

Snodgrass believes this parable is one of the four two-stage narrative parables [1]. Bock divides the parable into three parts: this life, afterlife, the painful plea [2]. Others question if the second part, afterlife dialogue (vv.27-31) belongs to the original parable or a post-resurrection, Lukan composition [3, 5]. The argument that vv.27-31 is either Jesus’ addition to a traditional story of Egyptian or Jewish origin or a later Christian addition alluding to the resurrection of Jesus recorded in Luke 24 stems partly from the disbelief in resurrection by Jews [1]. Nevertheless, there does not appear to have solid reason not to attribute this whole parable as a unit to Jesus [4], especially since the non-Lukan vocabulary in the parable suggests a pre-Lukan origin of both parts [6]. For example, the Freer manuscript uses “go (apelthe) from the dead,” not “rise (anaste) from the dead” [1]. Regardless of the authenticity of the Freer reading, Snodgrass believes the idea of return from the dead fits the story pattern well, even though the parable actually rejects the possibility of a return from the dead [1]. Besides, v.26 is already in the middle of the dialogue between the rich man and Abraham [1], making vv.27-31 an integral part of the parable [1].

Curiously, this parable stands out as one identifying a character’s name (Lazarus). Lazarus is a shortened version of Eliezer (or Eliazar, Eleazar), meaning God helps. Perhaps the name Lazarus carries a strange irony in that the man whose God is supposed to help lives a sickly, poor pauper’s life. One can almost hear the chuckle from the Jewish audience surrounding Jesus. Of course, the reversal of Lazarus’ fortune after death testifies to the faithfulness of God as his ultimate helper. The stark contrast between Lazarus and the rich man cannot be greater. The pauper Lazarus whom God helps was full of sore (but unlikely a leper who would be forbidden from begging in public), probably crippled so that he had to be placed by others at the gate of the mansion of the rich man who was feasting luxuriously in purple clothing and fine linen undergarment. The sickly pauper’s only desire was to be fed with some of the bread used as “finger towel” [2]. Yet no mercy came from the rich man. Even such disposed food waste stayed far from him. Scavenging dogs that fed on such bread came to lick the juices that ooze from his sores, intensifying his painful agony with hunger and making him ceremonially unclean. Likely in the derisive laughter of the unmerciful rich man and his friends, the silently suffering Lazarus breathed his last breath and died the death of an empty-stomached and bony-skinned sore loser. The rich man died too as his good life came to an inevitable end, but was properly buried in an extravagant pomp befitting any rich man of the day. Lazarus’ misfortune was beginning to turn, with his angel carrying him to the bosom of his forefather Abraham, a symbol of blessedness. Death became a watershed for both Lazarus and the rich man, as the fortune reversal played out to Lazarus’ favor and the rich man’s disfavor.

One commonly recognized uniqueness with this parable is its prominent contrast between this life and afterlife [1-6]. This parable is notably a parable of great reversal: Lazarus’ misfortune and the rich man’s good fortune in this life changed positions in the afterlife. Given the irreversible fallout from this to next life (how we live in this life has a deterministic impact on the next), I would call it the “irreversible reversal”. Recognizing it is Lazarus who rests in the bosom of Abraham, the rich man cries out to Abraham, asking, rather selfishly [3,4], for the favor to send Lazarus over so that Lazarus the pauper-turned-servant may cool his flamed tongue with a drop of water. What an ironic contrast! Lazarus’ plea for a bread crumb was mercilessly unheeded for. Now the rich man’s plea for a mere drop of water is justifiably ignored. Realizing the inescapable fate of separation and suffering, the rich man, out of his limited compassion [2], or possibly selfish and narrow-minded kindred care [1], pleads with Abraham to dispatch Lazarus to travel back to the earthly world and warn his five living brothers not to follow his footsteps. This seemingly altruistic plea based on the rich man’s false premise that dead man walking is a superior witness than the Scripture [2] is again rejected by Abraham, due to the sufficiency of the Scriptural testimony embodied in Moses and the prophets. The rich man’s final plea may also be a tacit complaint that he was deprived of adequate knowledge despite the well-heeled warnings from Moses and prophets [1].

Interpretation

Of the four options for interpretation, Snodgrass favors an early church exegesis and most modern studies centering on the parable’s moral impact with its denunciation of the wealthy who neglect the poor [1]. Discredited options relate to allegorical interpretation about Jews and Gentiles relation, Jesus’ ministry among the sinners and warning for Pharisees, or reversal coming with the kingdom’s advent [1].

Bock thinks the parable has four points: “(1) the treatment of people in this life, (2) the consequences of being callous to the needs of the poor, (3) the permanence of judgment, and (4) the inability of a person not hearing the Scripture to respond to God’s action in the world—even miraculous action” [2].

Others (Marshall, Fitzmyer, Stein) believe the two-part parable has two themes: the reversal of fortune and the sufficiency of the Scripture [3, 4, 6]. It teaches the prudent use of material wealth (Luke 16:9; 6:20, 24; 16:15) and salvation involving a reaction of obedient faith to the Word of God (similar to Rom.10:5-10) [4]. To Nolland, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus dovetails nicely with the earlier parable (Luke 16:1-13) in teaching the use and abuse of riches [5].

Other Elements

There are some nuances in the parables that invite further discussion. What is the exact locale and nature of abode in afterlife (be it intermediate or final state)? What is the difference between Hades and Abraham’s bosom? What exactly has caused the different fate between Lazarus and the rich man? How much of the graphic description is real or symbolic?

To say one way or another about afterlife is presupposing that one knows something about it. To remain agnostic or ambiguous about it is another option. Snodgrass cautions that it would be foolish to ignore the parable’s relevance for future eschatology as it would be to think it presented a picture of the actual state of affairs [1]. The equivalent of hell is Hebrew word sheol, Greek word geenna or Hades. Sheol is a place of the dead, such as the grave, or simply death. Hades, Greek word for sheol in LXX, refers first to the god of the underworld and then to the place. Sometimes both the wicked and the righteous are said to be in Hades (see Acts 2:27 in describing Jesus being in Hades after death). Other times, Hades is a temporary place of internment for the dead until judgment day. In our parable here, it seems to suggest a place where judgment is already rendered and punishment is taking place. But then, the fact that five brothers are still living while the rich man is in Hades indicates the intermediate nature of the place, even though the final fate of both the rich man and Lazarus is already sealed upon death [1]. It is unclear if both Lazarus and the rich man are in different parts of the same Hades, but it is clear that wherever they are, there is an unbridgeable chasm separating them [2]. A related word, geenna, derives from the Hebrew ge hinnom, the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem. Geenna is symbolic of the place of punishment. Abraham’s bosom may symbolize intimacy, meal setting, or euphemistically, being dead as the blessed [5].

The fact that the rich man can feel the torment and see Lazarus and converse with Abraham appears to suggest at least that there is genuine mental and cognitive awareness of one’s whereabouts and situation, although it may not be an actual description for the future life [1]. Such mental anguish experienced by the rich man serves as a warning to the living that how we live in this side of eternity has a great deal to do with how and where we shall spend in the other side of eternity. The present life is deterministic of our afterlife and there is an unbridgeable chasm between the blessed and the cursed [2]. That is indeed a very powerful statement of the parable.

Exactly why Lazarus gets to the bosom of Abraham, symbolic of the blessedness in afterlife, is less clear than why the rich man gets the shortchange of his fate. One can speculate about the reason but the parable simply does not say it [1]. The rich man’s failure to help the poor is an indictment for his lack of obedient faith in God’s Word. This parable continues to indict the rich Wall Streeters who lavish large sums of bonus on themselves while managing or mismanaging the collective monetary assets of the Main Streeters today. And both Main and Wall Streeters largely ignore the plight of the homeless, street-dwellers. Lazarus is still at the gate [1]. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is as clear today in the present economic upheaval as two millennia ago when Jesus first spoke of it.

References

[1] Snodgrass, Klyne R. Stories with Intent: a comprehensive guide to the parables of Jesus. Eerdermans, 2008.

[2] Bock, D. L. Luke 9:51-24:53. BECNT. Baker. 1996.

[3] Marshall, I. H. The Gospel of Luke. NIGTC. Eerdmans, 1978.

[4] Fitzmyer, Joseph. The Gospel According to Luke. V.2. Doubleday. 1985.

[5] Nolland, John. Luke 9:21-18:34.WBC, Word. 1993.

[6] Stein, Robert. Luke. NAC. Boradman, 1993.