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”
The men from Jerusalem came to Antioch from the Jerusalem church, of which James was the head elder. When Paul and representatives of the Antioch churches arrived at Jerusalem, James specifically said he sent no one (Acts 15:24). Check it out. These men, whoever they were, acted as though James had sent them, but he says he did not—or at least he did not send them to do as they had done. If anything they may have been sent to see how the brethren were doing, but this is not claimed.
You are correct. I am saying the Ebionites had a **poor** view of Jesus. For them he was merely a man, nothing more. They saw him as the Messiah, but not as God become flesh, nor would they acknowledge the virgin birth. Paul was a Jew, and he grew up at the feet of Gamaliel, a very famous and highly regarded Jewish rabbi in Jerusalem. Paul was his disciple, probably from age 12 or thereabouts. During his childhood at Tarsus, he would have lived in a Jewish neighborhood. Each ethnic group had their section of the city. This was normal in that people with common cultural backgrounds settled in the same neighborhoods. They spoke the same language, had similar customs etc.
Concerning Baal-Tarez, this is the first I have heard that Tarsus is named after this god. I did a quick check on the internet but couldn’t verify your statement. In any event there were no dying gods who were resurrected before Jesus. This is a myth created by modern critics who use the slightest implication for the authentic thing. In other words they are reading Christian terminology into the ancient descriptions of the various gods of Egypt, Greece and Rome, in order to claim Christianity copied earlier customs. I don’t buy it. You may try to prove it if you wish, but it can’t be done. The same goes for the so-called supper stuff. The things these critics see and try to say Christianity copied is nothing short of laughable.
How could Paul have been presenting Jesus according to a Trinitarian viewpoint? The doctrine of the Trinity arose after much discussion in the 4th century. That definition did not exist in the 1st century. Of what variations are you speaking when it comes to Paul and Jesus? As far as your ‘bottom line’ is concerned, it is not my place to say where the Holy Spirit can and cannot dwell. In other words, I don’t doubt for a moment the Holy Spirit is in the worship of any group who honors the God of Israel.
I don’t think you want to know anything you havn’t already accepted. The Church father Tertullian explains, that
[. . .the devil used “diabolic mimicry” in creating the mysteries of Mithras,(Freke and Gandy) . . . so the church fathers resorted to one of the most absurd theories ever advanced. From the time of Justin Martyr in the second century onward, they declared that the devil had plagerized Christianity by anticipation in order to lead the people astray! Knowing the true son of God was literally to come and walk the earth, the Devil had copied the story of his life in advance of it happening and created the myths of Osiris-Dionysis.]
These Gods had different names in different areas, like Baal-Tarez, Horus in Egypt. You can even find references to Baal in the Old Test. A good friend of mine who was a moody inst. grad. said that when they came to these stories the skipped them or said they were mere forshadowings, but they didn’t deny their existence.
What you believe about me is of little consequence, my friend. I know what I know and as long as I know I have studied with an honest heart, that is enough for me. Concerning the Mithras, they originated in what is, today, Iran and were spread to the Roman Empire through the military. The fact is, it was a military cult in the beginning. The problem for modern critics is: it did not reach the Mediterranean, until after the 1st century. It, therefore, had no possibility of influencing Christianity. Besides this, there is a host of differences between the deaths of the mystery cult deities and Jesus.
Concerning Osiris, there are several versions of the myths about him, perhaps indicating later versions of the deity. Osiris is supposed to be the lord of the underworld, but this doesn’t necessarily include a bodily resurrection. Critics today try to say his dismembered body was later put back together and was resurrected, but this interpretation is highly doubtful, since Osiris devotees wanted to be buried in the same ground where his body was **still buried**. What kind of a resurrection is that?
Certainly there is a reference to baal in the Hebrew Scriptures, but what does this have to do with the mystery cults that came later?
Oh I have some proof of dying and ressurected Gods before Jesus. First go to any Egyptian source and look up Horus. And where did the Jews come from?
Church father Tertullian, writes of Diabolical mimicry. He says,that the devil plagerized Christianity by anticipation, in creating the mysteries of Mithras. Creating the myth in advance of the true son of God, walking the earth, in order to lead the people astray.
Having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, the wicked spirits put forward many to be called Sons of God, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things that were said with regard to Christ were merely tales, like the things that were said by the poets. Quotes are from Justin Martyr’s, Apology.
There are many, many more, like these. They sure did work awfully hard to disprove the similar stories, that you say never existed.
Well, my friend, do you have an Egyptian text that says Horus died and was resurrected? What I have found is there is no record of him **dying,** laid in a tomb or resurrecting. If he never died, then he could not have been resurrected. There are many stories of various phases of the Horus myth, and one says he merged with the sun-god and in that sense one could say he **died** and rises every day at sunrise. I hope you can see that Christianity would have no reason to copy such a trivial claim, and what is more important, it really bears no resemblance to Jesus’ death and resurrection.
Concerning your statement: “And where did the Jews come from?” I am having trouble understanding what you mean. Would you mind offering an explanation?
Concerning Tertullian, all I was able to find was this:
All this says is the soldier of the Mithras refused any crown, and this was copied from the things of God. And, it was! We find the 24 elders casting their crowns before Jesus in Revelation 4. I am sure you can see that Tertullian is speaking in the 3rd century C.E. It just wouldn’t be logical to claim such a practice in the 3rd century C.E. could be used as the source of NT writings in the 1st century.
Concerning the quote of Justin Martyr I have a slightly different version:
First of all there is no mention of evil spirits, but the deed was done by men who wished to hide the truth. Secondly, there is no mention of the “Son of God” but the son of Jupiter—a god yes, but the actual title “Son of God” is not mentioned in Justin’s apology with respect to what these men did.
Having said this, your reference cannot be used to show pagan anticipation of Christ. The reference says these men acted upon what the Jewish prophets spoke, so the prophets, not the wicked, anticipated the coming of Christ. The wicked men only reacted to what they believed concerning the prophets’ words.
I hope you are able to see that these references actually support my position rather than yours. If any copying was done at all, it was done by the mystery religions or Mithras after the Gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection was preached.