The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus bears certain elements that seem to indicate at least part of the story did not come from Jesus. I do not mean to say that Jesus never spoke this story. I believe he spoke every word and every word is true. Nevertheless, if we take Luke 16:18-31 to indicate what happens after our physical death, the story would contradict what we find in the rest of the word of God concerning death. I have read several teachings that testify Jesus was quoting from or derived much of the content of this story from rabbinical literature [Notes from the Companion Bible, The Bullinger Publications Trust; The Bible Background Commentary by Craig Keener, Intervarsity Press; The New Jerome Bible Commentary, page 708, paragraph 151, Prentice Hall.] and formed the story in the manner the rabbis formed theirs. For example, this is the only story that Jesus names one of the characters. The rabbis often named one or more characters in their stories, but they named the more noble men. Jesus did the opposite by naming the poor man. While I cannot endorse every teaching in rabbinical literature, I do believe Jesus was using parts of rabbinic teaching to silence his enemies. Jesus changed enough in the rabbinical story to bring out a great spiritual truth that cannot be understood without appreciating the cross. The truth of what Jesus says here is very much misunderstood today. This will become clearer as we go along, but let me say that Jesus is not speaking of literal death or the literal punishment of the wicked after their lives on this earth is over.
If the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, as Jesus delivered it, still bore the identity of rabbinical literature, it would have cut to the very hearts of his enemies. Using their own words to condemn their stand against him would be too much for them (John 11:48-53). After this teaching, they had to get rid of him. There could be no turning back. From this time forward, they sought a way to destroy Jesus.
As Jesus said before, the scribes and Pharisees made void the word of God, so they might uphold their own traditions (Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:13). They were not faithful with God’s word (Luke 16:1). In this rabbinical story they paint a picture of an unmerciful God (Luke 16:24, 27-28). They saw God as a harsh and unbending lord, who did not have the compassion a sinner had for his lost brethren. Does it make sense that a carnal man burning in a flame of fire would all of a sudden, and without the Holy Spirit, develop the fruits of the Spirit of God? This man never knew or walked with Christ yet seems to have more love for his brethren than God, himself! This idea can only come from the self-righteous. I did think such things about God at one time. In fact, I remember thinking how harsh an ever-burning hell would be, and how I wondered if there couldn’t be some other way to punish people than to cast them into a fire that burned for eternity. Forever is so long and final. Surely, people would have a change of heart and mind sometime in eternity. Yet, it seemed God turned a deaf ear to all the cries that would come up to him. My thoughts, of course, exalted myself, thinking I would be kinder or more merciful than God. I would hear the cries. I would be more merciful than God. I have the capacity to love others more than God does. How self-righteous!
This story, as it is understood in rabbinical literature and many Christian circles today, also denies what God’s word says about death. Here men can see one another and have conversations after death, but God’s word says my thoughts perish when I die (Psalms 146:4). How can I see and perceive anything (Luke 16:23) or speak to anyone (Luke 16:24), if my mind is silent (Psalms 146:4)? David knew that after death there would be neither expression of knowledge nor praise or worship of God (Psalms 6:5). The story in Luke 16 claims the wicked are able to speak after death (Luke 16:24, 27, 30), contrary to the claim of the word of God (Psalms 31:17-18). Scripture says the dead know nothing and have no wisdom or memory (Ecclesiastes 9:5-6, 10).
Some may say this changed after Christ died. I partially agree. For those who are Christ’s, it has changed, and to be absent from this life is to be present with the Lord (2Corinthians 5:8). However, for the wicked, this is not so. Notice the word of God says death is a place of destruction (Psalms 88:11) and a dark land of forgetfulness (Psalms 88:12). Can anyone imagine a more picturesque way to express a dark place where all thoughts are forgotten, than is found in Jude 1:13: “… to whom is reserved blackness of darkness forever?” That is a very good description of death. The New Testament claims it is the temporary holding place or prison of the wicked until the Day of Judgment. The judgment is a time God has set aside in eternity to deal with them (2Peter 2:4, 9; 3:7; Jude 1:6; cp. Matthew 25:41).
Therefore, although the words Jesus spoke are true, they cannot be forced to mean what rabbinical literature and many Christian circles teach. Let us not go beyond what is written in the Scriptures (1Corinthians 4:6), because Scripture cannot be made to contradict itself (John 10:35). Nevertheless, some of these words would be most definitely Jesus’ own words, and their use would give the rabbinical story a new meaning and vindicate God. For instance, Luke16:31 does not appear in any of the rabbinical stories. While it is true that many rabbinical stories name one or more of their characters, Jesus probably chose the name Lazarus to drive home the point of verse-31. Remember, Jesus was teaching at Bethany after he called Lazarus back to life (John 11:43). The arrangement and some of the words had to come from Jesus, so he could tie in the underlying message with what he was already teaching. Yet, he purposely left some of the words of the rabbinical story remain, so he might rebuke the scribes and Pharisees with the very words of their own mouths (cp. Luke 19:20-22). They tried to catch him in his own words by asking why Moses permitted divorce (Matthew 19:3-9; compare Luke 16:18), but he reversed the ploy and caught them in their own words in his story of Lazarus and the Rich Man.
What follows is my interpretation of Luke 16:19-31. The certain rich man of verse-19 is the Pharisee who symbolizes the self-righteous. It is said that he fared sumptuously which means his feasts were luxurious. The word for fared is euphraino (G2165), and it is used four times in Luke 15 for make or be merry (i.e. feasting – cp. Luke 15:23-24, 29, 32). The beggar, Lazarus, is full of sores (sins) and typifies the publicans and sinners of Luke 15:1. The Pharisees would never eat with them (Luke 15:2; cp. Luke 16:21). The sinner had no place in the Pharisee’s life, either at the table in his home or where he taught. Though sinners crave spiritual nourishment (Luke 16:21), the only comfort they received was from other sinners, typified by the dogs in this story (cp. Matthew 7:6; Philippines 3:2).
The time came in the story when both Lazarus and the rich man died (Luke 16:22). This occurred to all men spiritually when Christ died at Calvary (2Corinthians 5:14-15). The Scripture says that all men are dead (verse-14), because Christ died for all men. That includes both the Pharisee (the rich man) and Lazarus (the sinner who desires to be fed the word of God). However, in 2Corinthians 5:15 we find that Christ died so they which live, that is, Lazarus who desires to feed on the word of God, “should not live to themselves, but to him who died for them and rose again.” This is typified by the messengers (angels) of the Gospel or the apostles etc. who brought the sinner into a relationship with Abraham (Galatians 3:6-9), the father of all who believe (Romans 4:11, 16).
The picture in Luke 16:23 is one of contrast between the believer and the one who toils in his religion. All of us are dead in our sins because of Christ’s death on the cross (2Corinthians 5:14), but only believers have been raised to life (Ephesians 2:1, 5; Colossians 2:13). When Christ died something spiritually significant happened to the entire human race, but only believers benefit from it. The rich man finds himself in a place called Hades, which has been translated to our English word grave in 1Corinthians 15:55. However, I believe it may also stand for the present state of all unbelievers. Hades is taken directly out of the Greek without translation and is made up of two other Greek words: the letter a (G1) is particle which makes a negative out of the word to which it is attached. The second word is eido (G1492) meaning “to see, to know, to understand or to perceive.” Taken together the rich man lifts up his eyes in a place he doesn’t understand, a place where his knowledge doesn’t apply (confusion), a place he cannot see or perceive. The picture here is of a person in this age without Christ. The word for torments is basanos (G931). It is translated into toiling in Mark 6:48, where Jesus watches the apostles “straining or toiling” against the winds while rowing their boat on the Sea of Galilee just before he came to them, walking on the sea. They were vexed for their labor was getting them nowhere. This is the picture in Luke 16:23 and prophesied in Isaiah 6:9-10 (cp. Matthew 13:14-15). The rich man (Pharisee) knows only that his religion is getting him nowhere. He is confused and doesn’t know why, because he has rejected Christ. He made merry with his own friends (Luke 16:19), but made no friends for Christ (Luke 16:9). He was able to see how forgiveness could benefit himself and enlarge his own area of influence (Luke 16:4-8), but couldn’t see the benefit of forgiving all in the name of Christ (Luke 16:13-14). The believer (Lazarus) seemed to have peace and joy, but the Pharisee (rich man) couldn’t perceive why.
The conversation with Abraham doesn’t literally take place, but reminds me of the conversations of the self-righteous, who trust in their own labor and not in Christ (Matthew 7:21-23; 25:11-12, 44-46). They, too, desire to be in the place of blessing, typified by the bosom of Abraham (a rabbinical hope), but the place of blessing is really with Christ. However, the self-righteous are unable to perceive this with their eyes or ears (Isaiah 6:9-10), though they think they know all they need to know (Mark 7:22; cp. John 9:40-41).
The self-righteous believe they may gain the spirit of righteousness simply by asking for help from the righteous (Luke 16:24; cp. Matthew 25:8-9). “How can you be so happy?” “Why don’t things like this bother you?” “How can you allow him to do that to you without striking back?” If I say to the irreligious, “It is because of Christ, who is in me;” they shrug it off as so much religious nonsense (Luke 16:14). They just don’t perceive. If I tell the religious the same thing, they equate it all as discipline or religious training. They are in Hades, a place of the unseen, a place of confusion (Luke 16:23). The word for tormented in Luke 16:24-25 is odunaomai (G3600), and is translated sorrowing in Luke 2:48, describing Mary and Joseph as they sought Jesus when he was only 12 years old, believing he was lost. It is also translated sorrowing in Acts 20:38, when believers in Ephesus realized they would not see Paul again.
For awhile, doing things the world’s way seems to profit the unbeliever. When a believer doesn’t participate in such things, it is considered foolish by those without Christ (Philippians 1:27-28; 1Peter 4:3-4). However, there will come a time when these things will bring the unbeliever to sorrow. He may not realize why his life seems so empty, only that he wishes he had done things another way, yet he still does not consider Christ (Luke 16:24-25). No amount of help the believer offers will take away the unbeliever’s condition, unless the scales are taken from his eyes, and he is able to see Jesus as his Savior. This gulf in Luke 16:26 is typified by the closed door in Matthew 25:10, outer darkness in Matthew 25:30, and the right and the left in Matthew 25:33. It is the place where Christ is not perceived. We can tell people about Christ. We can invite them to our churches, but something must happen between them and Christ before anything we say or do makes sense to them. Our authority lies in witnessing to them. We have no authority over the increase or the new life (1Corinthians 3:6-7; cp. Colossians 2:19) of the seed (Luke 16:26).
The believer is one who is raised from the dead (Ephesians 2:1, 5; Colossians 2:13), but this resurrection is not perceived by the unbeliever. He may desire proof of some kind, a miracle like someone healed or raised from the dead (Luke 16:27-28). How can the unbeliever warn others not to go the way he went? How can he keep his family from the sorrow he feels? A miracle? No! Look to the Scriptures. If a man will not believe Moses and the Prophets, which point to Christ (John 5:39), they will not believe even if they witnessed a miracle such as raising someone like Lazarus from the dead (Luke 16:31; cp. John 11:43-52). Why? Because first and foremost they need Jesus!
For nearly three and one-half years the Pharisees sought a sign to prove what Jesus said was from God. Jesus said that no sign would be given but the sign of the prophet Jonah. This he said concerning his own death and resurrection. Nevertheless, they had the opportunity to repent at this time, because Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary, was dead and buried for three full days and three full nights and was into the fourth day, when Jesus called him out of the grave (John 11:39). Repentance unto salvation doesn’t come through signs and wonders, salvation comes through believing the Scriptures that pointed to Jesus (Luke 16:31). May God grant us the light to see Jesus and that only he is able to bridge the great gulf between believer and unbeliever. Lord have mercy.
Smoodock's Blog 
14 responses to “Lazarus and the Rich Man”
Chapters 21-23 of Martyr’s first apology should provide what you don’t want to find. Martyr states that Jesus is a son of God, but not God.(earlier chapter) He says that in his (thirdly) part (below) that before Jesus became a man the poets, influenced by evil spirits related “before hand”. . . Archeaology has found evidence of pre-current era depictions of these sons of jupitor too.
XIII, “And that this may now become evident to you–(firstly) that whatever we assert in conformity with what has been taught us by Christ, and by the prophets who preceded Him, are alone true, and are older than all the writers who have existed; that we claim to be acknowledged, not because we say the same things as these writers said, but because we say true things: and (secondly) that Jesus Christ is the only proper Son who has been begotten by God, being His Word and first-begotten, and power; and, becoming man according to His will, He taught us these things for the conversion and restoration of the human race: and (thirdly) that before He became a man among men, some, influenced by the demons before mentioned, [related beforehand], through the instrumentality of the poets, those circumstances as having really happened, which, having fictitiously devised, they narrated, in the same manner as they have caused to be fabricated the scandalous reports against us of infamous and impious actions, of which there is neither witness nor proof–we shall bring forward the following proof.” Justin Martyr’s first apology. chapter xxiii. brackets are mine.
Taken piece by piece we could argue forever. I, like a juror, have looked at the evidence as a whole and found it substantial. Meaning that we cannot assume, the Bible inerrant, or any interpretation absolutely correct. Martyr is held in the highest regard, yet he did not believe in the trinity. He had the advantage of early documents that no longer exist and should know better than we.
Pelagian7
You quoted:
Why should I be embarrassed about what is told in mythology concerning similar things which was done in Jesus’ times? Justin qualifies what he says here by saying the writings of the Jewish prophets which predicted these thing are older than the writers of the myths. In other words, it is the prophets and not the myth writers who anticipated Christ, his message and his sufferings.
In your previous comment you argued that these myth writers predated Christ. They do, but they, as Justin claims, copied from the prophets of the Jews who foretold the coming of Christ and what should befall him. It seems you are ignoring this, and it is this very thing that refutes you claims about them.
You said:
If, indeed, Justin says Jesus is not God, as you claim here, how is it he says he is God when speaking to Trypho?
Notice that Justin says Christ is worthy of worship and to be called both Lord and God. Do you think you might be reading your own beliefs into what Justin is saying?
You quoted:
This is exactly correct, but as I said above, you are missing what was written before this phrase, namely:
Notice the writings of the prophets who preceded Christ and taught about him are older than the writers of the myths. There is nothing in Justin’s writings that support the stand you take here. I hope you are able to see this, because you seem to have grabbed onto only that the myths came before Christ—they did! However, the myth writers merely spoke about those things the Jewish prophets wrote. They adapted them to their gods, but the only true figure is Jesus, of whom the Jewish prophets wrote. They wrote the prophecies BEFORE the myth writers wrote their myths. The myths may speak of the things of Christ, but Justin argues they were copied from the writings of the prophets.
You said:
I can appreciate your decision relating to the fact the myths speak similar things of the Gospel, but Justin argues these writers copied from the Jewish prophets and adapted them to their gods. This tells me—a juror also—that the evidence, so called, is marred.
You said:
First, you have not shown the Bible is inerrant. In fact, your understanding of the myths seems to be incomplete in that you fail to acknowledge the myths do not predate the Jewish prophecies. In fact they are rewritten copies of those prophecies. We agree that “interpretations” of the Bible are not necessarily inerrant, but the Scriptures have not been proved to so.
Yes, Justin is held in high regard in the Christian community, but the Trinity doctrine was not hashed out until the 4th century. Justin lived in the late 1st century into the mid-second century CE. No one at this time preached the Trinity doctrine. The term “trinity” was a word coined by the 4th century fathers in order to offer language outside the Bible that could not be used by their opponents to show means something else. Justin couldn’t have used the term since the very word was not in use at the time.
Bill, very good argument. Although I can quote other parts of Justin’s writings, that support my points. You assume that the poets copied from the prophets. And you assume Justin is right, which he has to be to support your point.
We both ignore parts of the quote that don’t fit our point of view. You are ignoring how he blames evil spirits, rather than saying they copied the stories from the scribes.
Look at your blog, you pick and chose which statments to respond to. Some statements you ignore. Now if this was a contest for internet supremacy, and you won, gaining total control over everything on the net. Would you keep and post all my writings and arguments or would you do like the early church fathers and dispose of my writings. Keeping only brief quotes that you supplied arguments for?
Historians outside the Church’s influence say, the church kept some of these problematic writings, because the traditions attached to them, were too well known. Others the church leaders disputed in their writings and of course, the works of those who disagreed are gone. We know what the Church did to those who challenged doctrine. The Pope, at the time of Galileo, was a former friend of Galileo and yet he was called before the church and given house arrest, even after retraction. Bruno was burned at the stake. The list of bullying for their doctrine is immense, yet you don’t think these guys would correct scripture. They even admit to correcting the scriptures. I can quote church fathers who admit doing this, but you will find quotes of others, saying the opposite. So how about using common sense, would men like those edit if they thought it was for the good of mankind?
I am assuming Justin’s argument, yes. However, I am not the one assuming the poets copied from the prophets. Justin does this, and I quoted the reference above. Here it is again:
Notice, he says ungodly men heard things concerning Christ through the prophets. Therefore in order to give the impression those things were merely marvelous tales like that of the poets, they (the myth writers) put them forward as the sons of Jupiter. In other words they made up myths whose characters were called the sons of Jupiter, and gave to each a story involving what the prophets foretold of Christ.
Whatever the ‘spirits’ represent, the bottom line is men did the wicked things. Even if one believed in evil spirits, they are powerless to do anything in the physical realm without willing human beings to carry out their charge. I don’t care to credit such spirits for what men do, simply because they may be figurative. If I am wrong about that, I am wrong—but how would that change the fact: human beings are needed to do the wicked deeds that were done?
I tried to summarize. If I ignored something in particular you wanted me to address, you should have called me on it. I have debated on the internet on discussion forums and the posts could get quite large by quoting everything that was said. Look at how long this comment is getting. So far, I’ve quoted everything you posted. :-)
Concerning What I would do, I would leave your comments. I don’t see how my argument would mean anything without your input. After we are through, however, and enough time has passed, I may post them elsewhere, because they really don’t belong under Lazarus and the Rich Man! But that’s okay for the moment. :-)
Concerning what the church fathers did or did not do, I have no opinion. I would have to look at the arguments—pro and con—before I could agree or disagree with what you claim above.
I know of men who tried to show they were correcting the Scriptures, but they were proved to be heretics. I don’t know of any of the church fathers saying they corrected the NT manuscripts. It would be ludicrous to use men like the later Popes, because we already have manuscripts that date earlier than whoever may have desired to change the wording of the NT in later centuries. We have enough manuscripts and information about those times to show generally what the autographs looked like.
Concerning what the historians say, I have already replied to this argument above in this post.