The Rich Man and Lazarus

The Text:

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Parable or Not?

Let’s first address the question “Is this a parable or not?” I offer you a list of every argument (that I know of) that’s for and against this story being a parable.

Arguments for the Story Being a Parable:

1. Context: The story follows a series of undisputed parables (e.g., the Parable of the Prodigal Son, the Parable of the Unjust Steward). Luke 15 and 16 are filled with parabolic teachings, and this story flows naturally within that context.
2. No Explicit Designation as a “Parable”: Some saints opposed to the idea that this was a parable would argue that Jesus’ parables are introduced with phrases like “He told them a parable…” (e.g., Luke 8:4; 13:6; 14:7). Thus, the counter argument, rightly so, is that not all of Jesus’ known parables say “parable” before it.
3. ‘A Certain Man’ Doesn’t Mean it’s a True Story: Some saints opposed to the idea that this was a parable would also argue that because it says a certain man this has to be a true story. No, that’s not the case. There are five other parables in which we’re told that He spoke a parable, and then the Lord says a certain man or a certain householder or a certain rich man (Mat. 21:33, Luke 12:16; 13:6, 18:9, 20:9).
4. Fictional Narrative Structure: Some pro-parable saints have argued that the story has the characteristics of a typical parabolic narrative: a plot, characters (even with names), and a clear moral or spiritual lesson and that parables often use imaginative scenarios to illustrate spiritual truths.
5. Figurative Language and Imagery:
   1. Abraham’s Bosom: This is a metaphorical Jewish idiom for the place of rest for the righteous dead.
   1. The “Great Gulf Fixed”: That’s figurative describing an impassable separation between the righteous and the unrighteous in the afterlife.
   1. “Finger dipped in water to cool my tongue”: Some argue that this has to hyperbole or symbolism to convey the rich man’s intense suffering and impossibility of relief, because how can a soul in Hell have a tongue or a finger in paradise?
6. Communication Between Abraham’s & Rich Man Cannot be Taken Literally: If there was a literal “chasm” or a great gulf between them then how can these two people talk to each other? This has to be a symbolic representation as opposed to literal. If the saints could communicate with those in the place of torment, then that wouldn’t be much of a paradise  or as a place of pure joy and peace.
7. Abraham Speaks in an Allegorical Fashion: Some say Abraham’s words don’t sound like Abraham. They sound more didactic, designed to teach, and his words feel, not genuine, but crafted for the sake of a story.
8. Use of Irony and Reversal is Like a Parable: The story flips expectations: the rich man ends up in torment, the beggar in paradise. This kind of reversalis common in Jesus’ parables (cf. the Pharisee and the publican in Luke 18:9–14).
9. Theological Difficulties if Literal: If taken as a literal description of the afterlife, it raises questions that are difficult to reconcile with other Biblical teachings, such as the intermediate state. Does it perfectly describe the actual intermediate state, paradise being less than what they believed it to be in that they can see and hear and speak to souls in torment? How would a spirit have a “tongue” to be cooled by a “finger” if they don’t have bodies yet? And the soul sleeper would argue that OT verses only speak of rest and sleep.

Arguments For the Story Being True:

1. Names of Characters (Abraham/Lazarus): This has always been the strongest argument for me that this has to be a literal story. In no other parable does the Lord ever mention specific names nor does He ever reference or use patriarchs from Israel’s history to make a point. Nor does the Lord ever use a real person in a fictional way. The fact that He is naming names communicates to the audience that He is not telling a parable and that was the hook that kept everyone listening intently.
2. This Does Not Have a Common Parabolic Structure: Most of the time, there is an introduction advertising that this is a parable. Then the story, and then the Lord gives the interpretation or the application. None of those elements exist here. As Ed Bedore said, “Instead it is in the form of a real-life story given for the purpose of illustration” (from his two-part series in the May / June 2004 Berean Searchlights). Nothing about that conversation between Abraham and the rich man is consistent with a parabolic form of storytelling.
3. It Does Not Use the Principle of Comparison: Parabolic tales were designed to compare spiritual with spiritual. For example, you might have a field and fruit and some tares and all of that is meant to be compared to something else – like the Tribulation. It’s a comparison of spiritual concepts. That is characteristic of parables. Consider the prodigal son and his father. That was meant to be compared to God’s relationship with sinners. That form, that principle of comparison, doesn’t exist here.
4. Details Lend Credence to a True Story: Parables usually have great brevity. The Lord only mentions details essential to a story. But this story is seemingly filled with details not essential to the story. Why did we have to know that the rich man was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day? Wasn’t the fact that he was called a rich man sufficient? Why did we have to be given a name for Lazarus and all these other details about him being at his gate, full of sores, desiring to be fed with the crumbs and that dogs licked his sores? There’s only one reason for details like these. He’s describing real people that everyone in the crowd, especially the Pharisees, personally knew. Those details clicked inside of them. “Hey, I think He’s talking about that one wealthy guy we knew.”
5. Parables Only Took Place in the World: Never has a parable not taken place on the Earth. Parables were stories that took place in the world, which were used to be comparable to the kingdom or to convey some spiritual truth.
6. What the Lord Shares About Sheol is Verifiable: “Abraham’s bosom” is a Jewish idiom for a place of peace and honor for the righteous dead. Conscious existence after death is supported in the OT. After David’s child died, he expected to go to his son (2 Sam. 12:13-23). He will know him and recognize him in Sheol. In the kingdom, resurrected saints will see places that were desolate in their time on the Earth, and they’ll marvel how it’s now like the Garden of Eden (Isa. 51:3). Plus, the idea of the place of torment in Sheol is also supported in the OT. David would, for example write in Psalm 9:17, “The wicked shall be turned into hell [Sheol], and all the nations that forget God.” They knew the wicked would go to hell or Sheol in the context of judgment and consequences for unbelief. And they knew there would have to be a place of torment. Deut. 32:22 says, “For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell [Sheol], and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.” His anger, which is judgment that reaches the lowest places in Sheol suggests that the wicked will burn in that judgment. The idea that Sheol will be a place of comfort or rest for the righteous has a mountain of supporting verses (Job 3:17-19; 14:13; Psalm 16:10-11; 49:15; 73:24). For example, Isaiah wrote, He shall enter into peace (Isa. 57:1-2). So I’ll just say that between Job, David, and Isaiah, we know that Sheol is a place of rest for the saints, a place where the righteous in the prophetic program are all gathered together, and it’s a temporary stop before their future resurrection and glorification with God in the kingdom.
7. Straightforward Manner: All of these details about Sheol (Abraham’s bosom, Hades, torment by fire, conscious memory, a fixed chasm) are presented in such a straightforward manner, it’s like the Lord is speaking facts about Sheol, rather than spinning a fictional narrative. He wants this seen as straightforward eschatology.
8. Jesus’ Authority to Describe Sheol: As God incarnate, Jesus certainly had the knowledge and authority to describe Sheol literally. Therefore, if He chose to do so, it wouldn’t be out of character.

Another point I have made to advocates of a parable is that even if you think this is a parable, you have to, on some level, admit that parables are true-to-life stories. Even if you think this isn’t true, it’s still true-to-life, which means that even as a parable you have to take everything the Lord says about Sheol literally. It’s still true-to-life. A parable is a true-to-life story to illustrate a spiritual truth. It has to be true-to-life if the story is going to have any meaning to anyone. I’ll quote Ed Bedore again. “In this account of a beggar and a rich man, the Lord was revealing the reality of what takes place following physical death to drive home an important truth. We should mention at this point that even if it was a parable, the place referred to as Abraham’s bosom and the account of what took place in there would have to be based on reality for it to have any meaning.”

Verse-by-Verse Exegesis

Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

The fact that he was covered purple illustrates how wealthy he was, because purple was the most expensive dye. It’d take hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of snails to have enough dye for a robe to be true royal purple which is why it was so expensive, and why true royal purple conveyed to everyone at the time that this man had great wealth. He also fared sumptuously every day. He had great feasts every day. He had everything money could buy — except faith and spiritual foresight.

Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

This was a stark contrast to the rich man. The rich man had money. Lazarus had nothing. The rich man had feasts. Lazarus was begging for crumbs. The rich man was covered in expensive clothes. Lazarus was covered in sores. And it is true that dogs instinctively lick wounds, both their own and sometimes those of other animals or humans. Licking can help remove dirt, debris, and dead tissue And dog saliva does contain some antibacterial compounds (like lysozyme) and growth factors. So dogs licking a wound could offer a minor benefit in preventing infection or promoting healing. Plus, Lazarus was at the rich man’s gate hoping that this very rich man would give him some food and help him. But that help never came. Then they died. And the biggest contrast between the two is revealed in where they wind up in Sheol. The rich man winds up in the place of torment for unbelief. And Lazarus winds up in paradise because he had faith. The story does not tell us this, but we know salvation was always by faith in the OT – Romans 4.

In Luk 16:22 we’re told, And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

So when the beggar died, he wasn’t carried to Abraham’s Bosom by one angel but angels, plural. If the angels transported the souls of OT saints into Abraham’s bosom, does this mean that when we die, angels will transport our souls into Heaven? In 2 Cor. 5:8, Paul talks about being absent from the body and being present with the Lord. So the implication is that for us, there would be an instantaneous arrival in Heaven. This happened with the Apostle John in Rev. 4:1. He turned around, and he was immediately in Heaven at the door to the throne room of God. I would suggest that whether by angels or by the Holy Spirit Transportation Service, we are instantaneously brought into God’s presence.

Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Here we learn that the poor beggar wound up in paradise and the rich man wound up in the place of torment. This, I imagine, would come as a shock to the Pharisees and his audience. The consensus was, largely, that if a person was prosperous in Israel, then that must’ve been an indicator that he’s being blessed by God because of his phenomenal obedience to the law. That’s not necessarily the case. Social standing was not necessarily an indicator of one’s state of righteousness. There are many Psalms of David lamenting how the wicked were prosperous or in power. It may be that a person in Israel came into money in a very unjust sort of way and God was slow to wrath, longsuffering about sin, before He carries out judgment.

The fact that the Rich Man did nothing to help the Lazarus was evidence of lack of faith in God and a true interest in serving Him, because people who had resources were instructed by the law in Deut. 15:7-11 to take care of the poor kinsmen in the flesh. All of Israel was supposed to take care of its own. By not helping Lazarus, this illustrated that the rich man was really only concerned with himself and lacked any zeal or faith about serving the Lord God of Israel with all of his heart and soul as commanded by the Law (Deut. 6:4-5; cf. Mark 12:28-30). He did not truly love his neighbor, who in this case was Lazarus at his gate (Lev. 19:18; cf. Matt. 22:34-40).

What did it mean when the Lord said, Lazarus in his bosom? If “Abraham’s bosom” was a Jewish idiom for a place of peace and honor for the righteous dead, then this just meant that the rich man could see that Lazarus was in paradise.

Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

The great irony here is that the Rich Man who saw Lazarus at the gate starving, begging for crumbs, to whom he never showed mercy, is now in torments asking for Lazarus to show him the kind of mercy he had never been given when he was alive.

Then the Rich Man references his tongue and the finger of Lazarus. How can souls have tongues and fingers? This verse is why some would argue that the saints in paradise and the souls in the place of torment are given temporary bodies. That makes sense to me. Some might point to the appearance of Samuel when summoned by the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28:11-14). The witch told Saul he looked like “an old man… covered with a mantle (a cloak).” Is that an indication of what he looked like in his temporary body or was that just how God determined he would appear in this rather unique manifestation back on Earth?

For us in Heaven, the situation may be different. In 2 Cor. 12, when Paul was caught up into the third Heaven, he repeatedly said, “whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell.” We may be perfectly comfortable, and we may not be aware of whether we are in an actual body or not, because of all the glory.

The Rich Man wanted Lazarus to dip his finger in water. So in Paradise there is water to drink. They are likely eating food also. There is food in Heaven and food in the kingdom. There is also awareness in the place of torment of the luxuries saints have in paradise. They want that. The Rich Man wants water for some relief.

The Rich Man also isn’t suffering to such a degree that he’s incapable of thinking clearly. He can formulate thoughts. He can make deductions, be respectful, and articulate his desires. It’s interesting, too, that despite all the ways he was suffering, foremost on his mind was his burning tongue. He would have given anything for even a drop of water to cool his tongue.

Why does he ask for Lazarus when the rich man never showed him any kindness? Could it be he still had some entitlement in his thinking? Could it be that one’s unrighteous way of thinking continues in the afterlife? Or was he hoping that Lazarus might be understanding of his torment considering all the suffering he went through on the Earth? Or perhaps he had hoped that because they knew each other, Lazarus might have pity and do him this one favor?

Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

Interesting that the rich man called Abraham “father” and Abraham called him “son” despite the great gulf between them. Abraham was the father of Israel. The rich man was a child of Abraham. Yet, one is in torment and the other in paradise because one had faith and the other did not.

Notice also how Abraham said that Lazarus is now comforted. Despite the fact that Lazarus knew of the rich man, he might hear the souls in torment, he was in a deep state of comfort in paradise.

Plus, Abraham had full knowledge of the Rich Man’s life even though they lived in completely different time periods. Abraham was probably already filled with the Spirit as we know all the resurrected saints will be in the kingdom (Ezek. 37:12-14). So Abraham had access to full knowledge of anything he needed to know. In the afterlife, the Holy Spirit Himself is the internet for the saints. Nobody will ever have to wear a nametag. Introductions are never needed. Even humans who are alive would recognize an OT saint they’ve never seen. That happened when Peter, James, and John saw Moses and Elijah with the Lord at His transfiguration. They immediately recognized them.

Abraham also couldn’t resist stating the obvious. You had everything. Lazarus had nothing. And now this situation is reversed. Lazarus was righteous because of his faith, and you were not. I think Abraham, knowing their lives because he was filled with the Spirit couldn’t resist pointing out the irony of the role reversal. You also get a slight hint of satisfaction in Abraham pointing out this irony.

Some might say, “Well, it’s not my idea of paradise that I could see people in hell and even communicate with them.” The mindset is completely different once you’re freed from the presence of sin. You remember, these saints will be resurrected onto the earth in their glorified bodies, and what will they be doing? They’ll be ruling over Gentiles and dealing with sin in the kingdom, and they will love being a part of that (Rev. 2:26-29). The sin-corrupted Gentiles can’t tempt them to do anything and there is joy in applying the rightness of the Lord’s ways to these situations that will come up because of sin.

Then Abraham continues.

Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

I suspect it may be possible that the chasm would lead down to a room filled with those freaky locusts with stingers in Rev. 9.

Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

The fact that the rich man is negotiating with Abraham might also be an indication that Abraham is generally viewed as a ruling authority figure over paradise. So there must be a structure, order, and a government with Abraham as the head. By the way the rich man is talking, Abraham seems to have power to make things happen. And the rich man seems to believe Abraham has enough power to send someone back to the Earth. Abraham here is viewed as one with great authority.

Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

Why does the Lord mention the five brothers? Because everyone suspects that they know who the Lord is talking about and the five brothers only confirmed their suspicions. I would even go so far as to suggest that some of those Pharisees WERE the five brothers.

Abraham responds again.

Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The interesting thing to me here is that Abraham doesn’t deny that he has the power to send a soul back to Earth. He never says, “I can’t do that.” He merely tells him “no” and why. So if Abraham has this power, then he was the one who made the decision to allow Samuel to return to the Earth to talk to Saul, as well as Moses and Elijah.

Conclusion

The ending to this story is the best part of all. The Rich Man wanted Abraham to send up Lazarus to speak to his brothers. Abraham tells him no. And yet, the Lord told this story to His brothers, and He IS someone who WILL be raised from the dead.

We’re not told this, but I’ll bet you the Pharisees refused to believe this story which only confirmed what Abraham said.

So the Rich Man ultimately got his request fulfilled. His brothers were told of what happened and they still refused to believe just as Abraham had predicted.