Sunday: The Rich man and Lazarus
Read Luke 16:19-31. Why is this story not a literal description of the afterlife?
Some scholars suggest that Luke 16:19-31 should be interpreted literally, that is, as describing the state of the dead. But this view would lead to several unbiblical conclusions and would contradict many of the passages that we have already looked at.
Image © Providence Collection at Goodsalt.com
First, we would have to admit that heaven and hell are close enough to allow a conversation between the dwellers of both places (Luke 16:23-31). We would also have to suppose that, in the afterlife, while the body lies in the grave, there remains a conscious form of the spiritual soul with “eyes,” a “finger,” a “tongue,” and which even feels thirst (Luke 16:23-24).
If this passage were a description of the human state in death, then heaven would certainly not be a place of joy and happiness because the saved could closely follow the endless sufferings of their lost loved ones, and even dialogue with them (Luke 16:23-31). How could a mother be happy in heaven while beholding the incessant agonies of her beloved child in hell? In such a context, it would be virtually impossible for God’s promise of no more sorrow, crying, and pain to be fulfilled (Revelation 21:4).
Due to such incoherencies, many modern biblical scholars regard the story of the rich man and Lazarus as a parable from which not every detail can be interpreted literally. George E. Ladd, though a non-Adventist, certainly sounds like one here when he says that this story was probably “a parable which made use of current Jewish thinking and is not intended to teach anything about the state of the dead.” — G. E. L[add], “Eschatology,” in The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 388.
The parable of the rich man and Lazarus presents a sharp contrast between a well-dressed “rich man” and “a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores” (Luke 16:19-20, , NKJV). The account teaches that 1. status and social recognition in the present are not the criteria for the future reward, and 2. the eternal destiny of each person is decided in this life and cannot be reversed in the afterlife (Luke 16:25-26).
| “But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead’” (Luke 16:31, NKJV). What message from Jesus’ powerful words should we take for ourselves regarding the authority of the Bible and how we respond to it? |
(23)
I commend today's lesson on the way it goes about unpacking Luke 16:19-31. The lesson models comparing and contrasting the content of a passage with wider biblical principles, as well as with what we know about how reality operates, using reason.
God invites us to use the reasoning abilities that He has created us with (Isaiah 1:18), under the wisdom and discernment that He also offers and provides (James 1:5), illuminated by the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13) that we may grow in our knowledge and understanding of Him and the ways of His Kingdom (Jeremiah 9:24) in order to be salt and light to a perishing world (Matthew 5:13-16; 1 John 2:17; Hosea 4:6).
This passage of scripture possibly provides a bit of an insight into Jewish thinking at the time of Christ. We are rather inclined to think of New Testament Jews as primarily Pharisees with their rivals the Sadduccees in the background. In fact, there was probably almost as much diversity as in modern Judaism. Consequently, the story of the rich man and Lazarus probably did not raise too many eyebrows theologically.
As the lesson author points out, the story is not about the state of the dead, but about relationships and how we treat one another. It also serves as a reminder as to how difficult it is to change the minds of those set on self-gratification in this life. And it is not just referring to those who are greedy and rich in worldly goods at the expense of others. It is a lesson for those of us who think we are intellectually superior or theologically purer than others in such a way that we patronise others.
I like how Paul puts it:
The passage in question also reminds us that Jesus was culturally aware and used stories and idioms that were familiar to the people he was talking to. We need to understand that figures of speech, metaphors, and analogies are used in the Bible and need to be treated that way. That does not mean that we can use that as an excuse to deprecate spiritual truths.
I agree with Maurice that the setting of Jesus' parable would not have raised very many eyebrows. The Scriptures are clear regarding the unconscious state of the dead, but it seems that Jesus' hearers mostly had a contrary opinion, so He was meeting them on their own ground.
It seems to me that the point of the story is not where the rich man and Lazarus find themselves, but the kind of fate that awaits them there. The poor man who bore his suffering patiently, and loved and trusted in God, is comforted and exalted over the rich man, whose wrongly formed character has created a "great gulf" between him and Abraham, who served God in faith and obedience.
Our possessions will not increase our worth, in the final analysis, and there is no second probation for us after we die.
1. The parable seems to agree with a current belief - that's Jesus' way to get acquainted with people, communication is essential to reach into people's minds. Jesus wouldn't use a lie to teach the truth, but He could use other people's beliefs to shake their own. After all, faith requires choice!
2. The parable can much differ in content from what Jesus could be teaching, but yet the use of parables was a very much used tool in His speech.
3. Why would people believe in what He Himself was teaching if they wanted to continue to cling he their own beliefs? That was the central "parallel". Jesus is the creator of our brain, He knows exactly how it works, thus the more active a conclusion is reached in the mind the more it lasts as a cell connection, which means as a memory. Remember, the love of Christ focus in the change of our mindset! Through the renewal of our minds, character can be polished.
4. If one wants to continue to doubt, this is also a free choice. When Jesus finishes the story with "But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead’”, couldn't He be talking about Himself? "God's wisdom is shown by its results".
The authority of the bible is absolute truth (John 14:6). Individually, we respond to it by faith or no faith (believe or not to believe). Three reasons why we should place our faith on the bible being the authoritative words of God: (1) archaeological evidence, (2) prophetic fulfillment, and (3) personal transformation. Reason (1) provides real evidence and findings to back up the authenticity of the bible. Every time archaeologists keep digging up the past or discovering more information about ancient civilization gives further proof of the bible’s historical records mentioned in scriptures. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls validates the bible’s written words. Reason (2) the prophetic events foretold before it happened raises a person’s belief in trusting the bible even more so. For example, Daniel 2 describes ruling nations holding power within their specific timelines. Finally, reason (3) personal transformation happens when getting to know Christ intimately by studying scripture. For example, people’s lives are changed because the Spirit of God is working in them to be more like Jesus. The three reasons alone support the authority of the Bible and we should respond to it with great faith. And, all it takes is having the faith of a mustard seed (Matthew 17:20).
Let me talk about the contrary passage of Luke 16:19-31 which many readers believe is literal as opposed to it being a parable. A parable is fictitious storytelling where the usage of words shouldn't be taken literally, but taken as an idiom explanation. Jesus uses parables as a figurative way to make His audience use their critical thinking skills to understand the Kingdom of God. The message of the rich man and Lazarus was to teach the listener a valuable lesson about life and death in an allegory tone. Jesus uses symbolic language to drive home a point to the Nation of Israel. The Nation of Israel holds the spiritual food (bible aka manna) from heaven. The rich man represented God’s chosen people and the beggar represented the Gentiles. The gentiles (the poor) ate the crumbs (spiritual food) from the rich man’s table (house of Israel). The house of Israel was stingy in sharing God’s truth to outsiders by preventing them from hearing God’s message of hope, love, and justice. As christians (we are now Spiritual Israel) we have a responsibility to share the Gospel truth to the world. Jesus was telling His Jewish brothers and sisters to share the Message of God to the world. If not, they may find themselves to be cast out from heaven and discover themselves that outsiders were let in to sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of God (Matthew 22:8-10). This parable applies today with the Christian church of not sharing God’s message (spiritual food) to the lost world. Just like the rich man found himself in hell will likewise be our fate if Christians are hoarding spiritual food (Gospel message) away from the lost. God’s mercy and grace will shine upon those who didn’t receive the full gospel message (Romans 2:6), but a small taste of God’s spiritual food (crumbs from the table) were sufficient to reach their hearts by accepting Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Just like the beggar who found himself in God’s kingdom.
The parable had nothing to do about the state of the dead or hellfire, but to believe in the Bread (manna) that came down from heaven (John 6:35). The funny thing about this parable from Jesus transpired by resurrecting Lazarus from the dead who comes from the House of Israel as a living witness to the Jewish Nation that Jesus is the Messiah. As Jesus pointed out in verse 31, saying, the Jewish community and their leadership denies Moses and the prophets testifying Jesus as the Anointed One from heaven will not even listen (believe) to the words of Lazarus who came back alive from the dead.
I believe this parable is also prophetic in that Jesus would soon be raising His friend Lazarus from the dead to help them believe.
I see this parable as Christ pointing out the rich who have not made Christ the Rock they stand on, will stumble, and lose salvation. If we pull only from the parable the misconception of immortality of the soul, we have missed the point, being the vital importance of dependence on God no matter rich or poor.
I went up to my pastor many years ago, with a thought. The pastor said you missed the point of my sermon, I thought about it and studied the Bible, and ya know he was right.
First of all, what in the world is "Abrahams' Bosom?" Second, the angels carry the dead beggar to "Abrahams' Bosom," but who carries the dead rich man to Hades?
There is an old saying; "Don't try to make a parable walk on all four legs!"
There is often detail in a story that is of no consequence to the point of the story.
But in this parable, Maurice Ashton, there are more details about who carries the dead beggar to "Abraham's Bosom," than there are as to who carries the rich man to Hades. Therefore, this parable does not have enough details about Hades for me to believe that there is an eternally burning hell or that "Abraham's Bosom" is an actual place for the righteous that go there after they leave their dead bodies when they die. So yes, this parable does not have enough details to walk on its "four legs," to be used to prove that we have eternal bodyless spirits that not even God can destroy, so He has to have an eternally burning hell to send the wicked ones there to burn forever and forever.
Great points, Pete! Perhaps not so much for understanding this parable, but more for further Bible study, please allow me to point something out. Contrary to the KJV and popular misconception, "Hades" is not hell.
According to the book of Revelation, the lake of fire that we call "hell" doesn't even exist until the end of the thousand years that begin when Christ returns. It takes place on the surface of the earth and consumes (devours) the wicked who (according to Malachi) become ashes under our feet. There is a word in New Testament Greek, that Jesus is sometimes quoted as using for hellfire. That word is "Gehenna."
To the pagan Greeks (and presumably the Hellenistic Jews), Hades (pronounced "haw-dase") was a gloomy place somewhere under the ground, inhabited by the disembodied spirits of the dead. And, most importantly for our analysis, it was where everyone went at death.
To the New Testament writers, who would have been familiar with the Old Testament teaching that the dead know nothing, but are asleep in the grave ("Sheol" in Hebrew), "Hades" was a Greek word that they could use as an equivalent to "Sheol." Adventist scholars have observed that those writers used "Hades" consistently in that way. Even the KJV translates it as "Grave" in 1 Corinthians 15:55.
With this understanding, we can see why Jesus didn't have to tell us how the rich man got to Hades (the grave). He died, didn't he? When the rich man gets there, he is tormented in "this flame." A single flame, making his existence rather unpleasant, is hardly an adequate description of Gehenna (hellfire), but the allusion seems clear enough. Similarly, Lazarus' situation, comforted in "Abraham's bosom," isn't quite how the Bible generally pictures Paradise, but again it's hard to miss the allusion.
In the setting of a popular myth, Jesus holds up a mirror for the unbelieving Jews to see their spiritual condition before God.
I hope this is helpful.
As I said before, R.G. White, I always look for your "Awesome" inputs. This one is very informative to be sure. So the main idea I see in this parable of Jesus is to get His listeners to get ready for heaven "now" because there is no getting ready after "the grim reaper" comes to claim his victims.
As I said, Pete, we have nothing that is not graciously given to us. I am thankful for the privilege of sharing, and glad you found this helpful.
I believe it is good if, in addition to clarifying the 'state of the dead', we would receive other spiritual truths pointed out in this lesson as well.
For example, the Scripture passage of Luke 16:19-31 reflects the truths that: v.30-31 “…. “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” This is the fundamental truth which all who seek after Truth have to come to terms with. Either they believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or they do not – John5:37-47.
There is no other door through which the seeker of God’s Truth can come to find His Truth; this door is called - ‘Believe and Faith’. Ultimately, the believer's eyes are opened, ears hear, and the heart and mind comprehend. The gulf the parable mentions is in my understanding the separation between the quality of the spiritual life lived as a believer vs. that of the unbeliever.
Lazarus, seeking to obtain relief from the discomforts of his life relied on the mercy and grace of God through the kindness of those he encountered, whereas the ‘rich man’ was never in 'need' of help. His ease and 'pride of life' prevented him to reflect that anything else could be involved other than the reward for his 'own efforts'.
Could the rich man have been persuaded in his lifetime - yes. But in this parable, Christ wanted to depict the spiritual value of a life acknowledging faith in God, versus the life lived based on the reward through works.
The parable seems to be addressed to the Pharisees who were sneering at Him (Luke 16:14) just a couple verses earlier. Pharisees tended to see themselves as rich and blessed and assured of God's favor, with Abraham as their father. (See Luke 3:8, John 8:39-41) They represent the rich man in the parable.
Poor, sick beggars were considered smitten by God, out of God's favor, probably suffering for their sins.
What a shock when Jesus pictured the rich man suffering hell fire, while the beggar was obviously a spiritual child of Abraham, (in the bosom of Abraham), thus a child of God.
The real punch line comes with the "even if a man were raised from the dead, you would not believe."
Lazarus (a man with that very name) was raised from the dead; did those Pharisees believe? No, they conspired to put both Lazarus and Jesus to death.
The parable isn't a statement on the state of the dead. It is contrasting two classes of people. There were those who thought Abraham was their father, but they had a different spiritual father. Yet, they felt their status guaranteed salvation. Then there were those who everyone thought were outcasts from the "chosen of God" but were actually spiritual children of Abraham, thus children of God.
So the main point of this story? Jesus predicted the Jews would not believe that He was the Messiah even if a dead man was resurrected.
This story does not “prove” souls are immortal, nor that there is an eternally burning hell.
No, Jesus used the errant theology of the Pharisees not only to show them they were on the road to destruction, but also to highlight the point that even if a dead man was brought to life, they would refuse to believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
We often state what the parable does not mean rather dogmatically. How could we help someone discover that conclusion for himself?
Hello Dana,
This is how:
1. Context. Before telling the parable, what was Jesus preaching about such that he uses that story (illustration)? Was it about death? (see Luke 16:15 - coveteousness and self proclamation as righteous)
2. Parables in Jesus' preaching. Remember that parables needed to be explained, they are quite many, the sower, good samaritan, leaven bread, tares and wheat. Jesus later said, ... means .... (Psalm 78:1,2)
3. Compare with the light of the rest of the scripture. In cases where verses are contrary, we take the teaching of the rest of the supporting scripture and apply the general idea. (Isaiah 28:9, 8, 13)
4. The controversy is over sonship. The rich man=Jews (Rom 9:4) who received many priviledges and the poor man=Gentiles (Ephesians 2:12; Matthew 15:21-27) who ate crumbs (Matthew 15:27). Thinking they were heirs of the promise through being physical descendants, they failed to accept Christ (John 1:10-11; 5:46-47) yet the poor gentiles accepted him (Matthew 8:5-12). Was that Helpful?
I really like the idea that Jesus met people on their own ground, even using their erroneous thinking about the state of the dead to teach them an eternal truth that even “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.” (Luke 16:31.)
But it does beg some questions. Why would Jesus use error to teach truth when that would have to be corrected later and that might put his aspects of his teaching in question? Would that mean that we could use the erroneous beliefs of others to teach eternal truths in our evangelistic books and magazines? If those who believe in the immortality of the soul are teaching this doctrine in good faith to reach the lost, how should we view their ministry? How would Jesus view their ministry?
From what I understand of the beliefs of the Sadducees and Pharisees, this parable has elements that would aggravate both groups—providing grounds for them to reject what Jesus was saying. I am not sure why Jesus would use something that might alienate both groups from his message. It seems counterproductive.
When I dialogue with people that do not know the “truth” about the immortality of the soul, it gets in the way of our dialogue because I get stuck on the “truth”. Jesus’ use of this parable indicates that fine points of doctrine like the immortality of the soul are not “the” point. I am coming to believe that if it is not in our hearts to take care of the needs of people that God puts into our sphere of influence, then neither “Moses and the prophets” nor miraculous resurrections will do us any saving good in our outreach or inreach.