The Rich Man and Lazarus
Luke 16:19-31(NIV)
19"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,[c] 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.' "
At first glance, this parable appears to be a straight forward teaching about the evil of living luxuriously to the ignorant detriment of the poor living at one’s very doorstep. In many ways, this interpretation finds support throughout Scripture. Jesus lived by meager means (so poor he and his disciples resorted to picking heads of grain as they passed through fields for food), compassionately approached societal refuse, healed the blind, the deaf, the dumb, the possessed, and brought new life to the literal lepers of Jewish society.
Yet to quickly dismiss this parable as yet another one amongst the great religions that warn of the perils of wealth and preach compassion to the poor would be to miss the heart of Jesus’ message. Contextually, this parable almost immediately follows a teaching on the Law and the Kingdom of God, as well as the parable of the dishonest manager. Seen in light of previous teachings on money throughout Luke, this parable seeks to develop more than the simplistic mantra that money is bad. Jesus consistently preaches an iconoclastic vision of the heavenly perspective. His cumulative teachings on money center less on how much one possesses; Jesus ate with wealthy tax collectors and poverty stricken beggars alike, as much as what a person treasures in their heart. He plainly proclaims earlier in Luke 12:34, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” The command is to store for oneself treasures in heaven (Luke 12:33), using every resource here on earth to do so (Luke 16:9).
The importance of considering this passage as more than a warning against wealth on earth is the danger of perceiving heaven as merely an inversion of our earthly hierarchy. Taking this vision to the extreme, those on the higher rungs of the socioeconomic ladder are destined for eternal damnation, as evidenced by the rich man’s fiery suffering, while those who experience suffering on earth will instantly be transported to paradise at the right hand of Abraham. This view is not consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teachings throughout Scripture. Although there is the verse that says those who are last shall be first and those who are first shall be last, the context of that particular saying has more to do with total devotion to God rather than purely socioeconomic reordering. Viewing all wealth as innately bad, and all poverty as innately good creeps dangerously into the territory of thinking promoted during the painful eras of China’s Cultural Revolution or Cambodia’s Killing Fields led by Pol Pot. Christ’s warning on wealth had always been against avarice. Strict inversion of wordly hierarchy was never Jesus’ goal. Inversions of perspective and motivations were.
Interestingly, this passage reveals very little about how either the rich man or Lazarus lived their lives on earth except in very general terms regarding their socioeconomic position. The rich man lived sumptuously, wearing fine clothing, feasting on the choicest of foods every day. Lazarus is described only as covered in sores, longing to be fed by the leftovers of the rich man’s table, living at his gate. A further point of interest is the identification of the rich man anonymously, almost as if he were not worthy of specificity. Perhaps, Jesus attempts to invert their worldly positions by giving a name, a symbol of position, power and honor, to the poor man Lazarus, rather than the rich man. Or perhaps naming Lazarus reflects Paul’s words that God will give us personal names in heaven.
There is also an ironic parallel between the name of the poor man Lazarus in this story and the later real life Lazarus who Jesus actually resurrects. That Lazarus was considered enough of a close friend that his death caused Jesus to weep. He probably was not a beggar, as he was financially caring for his two sisters, and most likely did not have sores. However, his death and probably entry into heaven (quite likely considering his intimacy with Jesus) does parallel the fictional Lazarus. His resurrection further parallels Jesus’ resurrection and the final verse of this parable. However, the fictional Lazarus was not allowed to return to earth to proclaim the kingdom of God and warn others as the historical Lazarus probably did once resurrected.
Whatever Jesus reasons for naming the two characters in such a way, we are only told that the rich man lived extravagantly while Lazarus begging at his front gate never received anything good. In this description, we are shown a glimpse of the rich man’s personality. Considering Lazarus’ proximity to the rich man, sitting at his gate, it would be impossible for the rich man to plead ignorance to Lazarus’ plight. Indeed, considering the importance placed on hospitality and generosity to the poor in that era and culture, the rich man’s inaction towards Lazarus reveals a great deal about the state of his heart. Due to the Jewish audience and the reference to Abraham in heaven, it would be safe to presume that both the rich man and Lazarus were Jewish. Thus, the rich man’s staunch refusal to aid the beggar at his door receives further condemnation from the strict Jewish laws regarding helping societal poor.
This passage exemplifies the importance of context. Only a couple verses (16-17) earlier, Jesus boldly proclaimed that “The Law and the Prophets were only until John; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is preached, and everyone forces his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.” Could it be that in His attempts to introduce the new covenant of God’s grace, Christ wanted to reinforce the standing of the Law? Does this parable’s condemnation of ignoring the poor merely mean that good works are still required for entrance into heaven? Perhaps, but I don’t believe reinforcing the iron statutes of Jewish Law was Jesus’ primary intent. His vigorous attempts as an iconoclast to break the Jewish mentality about outward works, the Sabbath, and the letter of the Law are not consistent with this view. Verses 16 and 17 are placed together as the paradoxical yet complementary truisms of the Christian faith. The Law does not bring life, but rather condemns and brings death through the recognition of sin, as Paul later writes. Yet the Law will not pass away, for sin cannot be ignored; Jesus’ blood does not ignore sin. The good news of the kingdom of God is about the forgiveness of sin. The cleansing power of grace washes away sin, pays the wages of sin, restores the brokenness from sin, but does not ignore the fact of sin. In fact, grace would become meaningless if the Law that condemns sin were not to exist. Thus, verses 16 and 17 make sense only together, and powerfully impact this parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
The rich man while suffering in hell requests that Abraham touch his tongue with a drop of heavenly water to ease his pain. His request could not be answered even if Abraham had any inclination to do so because of the vast chasm fixed between them. Without any hope for himself, the rich man requests that Abraham send Lazarus back to earth to warn his father’s house about the impending judgment, and to avoid his agonizing fate. This is where the importance of verses 16 and 17 enter. On the surface, it is easy to presume that Lazarus’ warning would involve living sumptuously without regard for the poor. However, this view ignores both the rich man and Lazarus’ current position in hell and heaven respectively. At this point, both parties would expectedly know the truth of how and why they are in their positions. Lazarus in heaven especially should know considering his proximity to God. Seen in this light, the rich man’s request for Lazarus’ warnings would be recognition of the need to proclaim God’s grace to sinners through Jesus Christ. The truths from verse 16 and 17 now become the central theme of why both characters are where they are, and what the rich man wants his brethren to know about.
Interestingly, the dialogue between Abraham and the rich man continues with Abraham pointing to Moses (the Law) and the Prophets as sufficient sources of God’s message of salvation. In a way, Abraham is right, as the Law followed strictly shows God’s holiness and man’s insufficiency, while the Prophets point to a future salvation (Isaiah 52-53) by a humble savior. Additionally, notable Jews found salvation prior to Christ’s message - Simon and Anna the prophetess quickly come to mind. Yet the rich man, perhaps with full knowledge of his own ignorance and hard-heartedness pushes for Abraham to send Lazarus as a warning. He claims that if someone from the dead goes to them, they would surely repent. Surprisingly, Abraham replies that even someone resurrected would be insufficient if the Law and the Prophets were not enough. Speaking directly to Pharisees and teachers of the Law, this message should have an additional impact. Jesus attempts to reach them on their level through this parable, exhorting them to consider all the more deeply what they know from the Law and the Prophets. He also foreshadows a deep irony in this last verse. Abrahams’ announcement that even news of someone coming back from the dead would not be enough for those who ignored previous messages, points to the later death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The recalcitrant attitude from the Pharisees is predicted in this final verse. It appears that even the good news that God’s grace defeated death through Christ’s resurrection, extends to all humanity would not be accepted by those who willfully ignore God (v.15). Yet to all those who humbly call unto Him, Abba Father, He has given the right to be called Sons of God. In light of this vision of social relation, that all are equal in God’s sight to find salvation through His son, which position will you take? Will you listen to the message of one that has returned from death to tell of God’s grace? Hear and believe the good news. Avoid the final death and find new life, full life, life overflowing through Christ.
SDG
