Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke

[Holly and Ivy]

How to you understand the story of the rich man and Lazarus? What does it mean?

[jimwalton]

In Luke there are two dynamics playing as one of the subplots: (1) Luke advocates for the poor, that they should be treated well by followers of Jesus, and that the rich will be subject to judgment for their pride, greed, and lack of social compassion; and (2) “the rich” symbolize sinners, and “the poor” symbolize the godly, on a spiritual level. With that in mind we approach this story.

The rich man is described in extreme terms, and so also the poor man. They are portrayed in polar opposites—economically, health-wise, and in their degrees of comfort. The rich man defines all the “blessings” of this world—he is the pinnacle of what we call life—and the poor man defines the lowest, the last, and the least. He might as well be dead.

On one level it’s a story about how God vindicates the poor (the underdogs of this life) and judges the rich (those who are privileged but show no compassion for their fellow man). The story is filled with images of excess and deprivation. God raises up the poor and pushes down the haughty. Those who neglect the poor will be condemned. It’s a story of grotesque economic disparity, and about wealth and suffering. Despite the common idea that wealth is a sign of God’s favor, this story gives the opposite teaching from every angle: money will mess you up, and it does.

On the other level it’s a story about humility’s link with godliness, and pride’s link with sin.

At the beginning of the story the poor man gazes on the rich man’s blessing, longing to have what he has. In the end, the rich man gazes on the poor man’s blessing, also longing to have what he has.

The beggar dies, and was carried by angels to Glory. The rich man, we are told, died. Just died—an understatement given his “status”. The rich man, despite his “blessings from God,” turns up in hell. In other words, don’t be fooled by visual impressions and by society’s evaluations. He symbolizes pride, autonomy from God, and callous disregard for the poor.

Knowing that God is a God of love and forgiveness, the rich man begs for pity and mercy in the afterlife as Lazarus had in his mortal life. After all, if that is God’s character, he cannot help but show mercy, and if he is really a good and loving God, he cannot endure to see anyone in agony for eternity. He hopes for mercy because he belonged to the people of Israel. We find out again what has been said many times: nobody’s keeping score, and there is no such thing as “birthright.”

The symbolism here is of agony and torment. In the Old Testament, thirst and death by thirst are often presented as divine judgment, so that’s the point here. Another symbol is that the tongue (lips) is often a symbol of morality. So saying, he wants his guilt removed and to be in the place of honor, comfort, and peace. He is suffering on many levels.

“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.’ ” Here the reversal of role and status shows the story to be symbolic. Wealth in Luke is often a symbol of godlessness, while poverty is symbolic of those who seek God. It’s ridiculous to think that the meaning of this is that those who had it good in life will be punished, and those who had it rough will be rewarded. Rather, the point is clearly that of spiritual position (the symbolic interpretation of the story) and the consequent eternity. The godly are those who go to heaven; the ungodly will suffer in hell. Your eternal destiny has nothing to do with what kind of person you were, but where your soul was linked.

“And 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.” The symbolism of this part of the story tells us that there is no way for the people in heaven to help those in hell come over. There is no intercession and no mediation. Death pronounces the finality of decisions made in life.

“Well, if there are no second chances, then warn my brothers, who are still alive, so they know the truth.”

“The truth has already been spoken and recorded,” comes the answer.

“It’s not enough. It’s not good enough. It’s not strong enough. It’s not convincing enough. Do more, like bring someone back from the dead.”

For those who insist on an existential, tangible experience of God before they will believe, they will not receive it. Jesus says that tangibility is not the convincing factor. Tangibility is ultimately as subjective as anything else, so our eyes, ears, and senses can be fooled. Sometimes we think we see what we did not, or swear we didn’t see something we did. In addition, sometimes we see something, and then doubt it: “Did I just see what I think I saw?” Ultimately our guts and brains cooperate to determine what we choose to believe, and our senses only play a part in the drama.

[Head William]

Would this be a typical sermon that you preach to your church? Here is my critique of your message: My critique is not to shoot you down or to insult you in any way but basically in a few words of truth to inform you ,....that's terrible exegesis .

1. That's all human reasoning
2. Did you learn that in college?

But
I'm glad you shared your belief on this passage in Luke. I reject every word you have said on the basis ...... it's all human reasoning, and secondly ,..... there is a much better answer . The truth of this passage is mighty. I'm not sure you want to hear my view. But thanks for sharing,..

P.S.

I couldn't go to your church with my disabled daughter she couldn't stick that nor would I put her under your ministry.
my grand daughter is
deaf
blind
can't walk
gets fed with a peg in stomach
was born with fluid in the brain
disabled.

but hey, she can mumble a few words like da ma sa ta ba,....that's about all. but her beautiful eyes and features speak love and she smiles continually and has never cried in her 6 years,..i'm crying now after reading your explanation of poor , money and the rich,.. you've missed it Jim, i'm amazed . and you have a full brain, eyesight and hearing and you've money your not poor your rich and that's the best you can do after 40 years , wow.

I'm off now to baby sit my granddaughter, its 24x7 for my son and his wife , we help out 2 or 3 days a week, and we drive the school bus for the disabled children twice a week , the joy we get from those children, the love and no words are spoken. Ministers won't visit her where we live,....why,....because her love burns them up at a glance.

[jimwalton]

I’m sorry about your granddaughter. It sounds like a tragic situation, but you all have responded with overwhelming love, as you should.

Of course I’m interested in your explanation of the passage. Dialogue and learning are what I’m here for. Exegete the passage for me if I’m so off-base. I’d love to hear what you have to say.

[Head William]

Lazarus and the rich man story/parable. The characters in the passage from Luke 16 are:

1 Father Abraham
2 Lazarus
3 The Rich man
4 The five Brothers of Judah ( the mother being Leah )
5 The Great Gulf ...... division between the Jew and the Gentiles
6 The angels or messengers (mawlak) human messengers of royalty carried Lazarus the Gentile to a royal tomb with kingly recognition.
7 The rich man Judah just had an ordinary funeral .he was buried also in a cave or tomb with no kingly recognition.

Identification of the characters:

Father Abraham and /Abrahams Bosom and Hades /Sheol
Rich man in purple and linen....Judah
Lazarus is a transliteration of the Hebrew "Eleazar" (a gentile) from Damascus in Abraham's household.
Eleazar" (a gentile) = Lazarus who ate the crumbs
The Great Gulf / chasm = The Jordan Valley Rif divided the Holy Land from that of the Gentiles.

Judah’s 5 brothers are: Judah requests please tell my 5 brothers.

1. Reuben
2.Simeon,
3. Levi,
4. Issachar
5. Zebulun

Now that i have outlined the story hopefully you can see a greater picture forming. Do you agree with these characters so far? If so, here are the Scriptures.part 2 will follow shortly with scriptures.

Genesis 15 verses 1 and 2

Abraham's steward or servant ...Eliezer in the greek can be transliterated as Lazarus.

ATS Bible Dictionary

Eliezer
1. Of Damascus, the lawful heir of Abraham, should he die childless, Genesis 15:2. He is generally assumed to be the "eldest servant," who was sent, sixty-five years afterwards, to obtain a wife for Isaac, Genesis 24:1-67

The Jews were given the riches of God. And their role was to operate as royal priests dressed in purple and fine linen.

Gen 49:8 "Judah, your brothers shall praise you; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; your father's sons shall bow down before you.
Gen 49:9 Judah is a lion's cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him?
Gen 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.

The Gentiles sat at the rich man's table waiting for the crumbs,....see story in gospels ,

1. The Canaanite women
2. The Greek woman
3. The gentiles waiting for the gospel from the jews that never came , they were a nobody aliens from the common wealth of Israel. Gentiles were dogs.

Mat_15:27 She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."
Mar_7:28 But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."

The Jordan Valley Rift the great gulf, see your map this is the great divide between the promised land and the land of the gentiles No one could cross over and partake of the oracles of God They belonged to Istael

To be at Abraham's bosom… kolpos .. meaning lap…relates to the 2nd temple period of reclining , to be special. See john 13 v 23

See also the water that the rich man longed for was the blessings of the living water he had, but failed to share ,they had the living water , then it was taken from them to bring the gentiles in to witness and share with. the gentile.

History speaks for itself as to how eventually the gentiles crossed the great gulf ,..jesus brought us all in . it was impossible without him. He removed the great chasm.

That’s the story/parable in brief.

[jimwalton]

Wow. I have never in my life seen anything like this. I disagree with everything you said. This is not valid exegesis, because there is nothing in the story, in Luke’s Gospel, or hinted in the context to warrant this kind of interpretation. We find symbolism in other texts, but there are elements in the context, in the theme or point, or hints in Scripture that open this door. There is nothing in the story of Luke 16 or in Genesis 49 to lead us anywhere near an interpretation like this. It’s not the way we do exegesis; it’s not the way we do hermeneutics; it’s not the way we do Bible study.

Sure, we have (1) Father Abraham, (2) Lazarus, and (3) the rich man. But where do you get the five brothers of Judah? And with what exegetical warrant do you identify the great gulf as the division between the Jews and Gentiles? First of all, that has nothing to do with the five brothers of Judah or with any of the context of Luke. What context or grammar or prophesy lead you to identify the rich man with Judah? Nothing. Or that the great gulf is the river Jordan?

Back to Genesis 15. None of the account of this story looks forward to the story of Jesus in Luke 16. You just have no exegetical or hermeneutical grounds to make Luke 16 mean what you have made it mean.

[Head William]

You, Jim, as the expert, explained Luke 16 but never referred to the 5 brethren nor to anyone in the parable. I, William, as an unbeliever, quoted and referred to scripture giving biblical details, which you rejected. You didn't believe Judah had 5 brothers and lazarus /eliezer was not a steward in Abraham's house even though the bible states this.

Conclusion: Your interpretation proves the bible is wrong, and then then you say my biblical readings are wrong

one wrong plus another wrong makes the whole thing wrong. Like I said, the Christian beliefs are all stupid.

For example, hundreds of Christians all over the world every day have been using front line prayer attack at Satan and his demons for over 2000 years. For 2000 years you guys have been casting binding and opposing Satan, to no effect. We bind Satan in his name, for hours they pray and scream and froth, then they come home all snug, we have bound Satan we have cast him out. What nonsense.

Back to Judah and his 5 brothers, the Bible says he has 5 brothers, Jim says no. I believe you, Jim—the bible is wrong, there is no 5 brothers in the rich man story, it's a fairy tale.

Congratulations, well done , you're right.

[jimwalton]

I would be glad to further explain and clarify what I said. I never said Judah didn’t have brothers. Nor did I say that Eliezer (Lazarus) was not a steward in Abraham’s house. The Bible states both of those, and of course they are true. What I said is that’s not what the story of Luke 16 is about.

What I said was that there is no evidence to support your idea that Luke 16 is referring back to Judah and Eliezer, and the division between Jews and Gentiles. That’s where your exegesis goes astray. Your interpretation is not verifiable and it has no link to authority, and you can’t legitimately claim that Jesus was teaching that. You can’t claim that it “fits” when you are the one, not the Bible, that has made those identifications. It only fits because you have fabricated a fit that the Bible doesn’t endorse or justify. Just because the Hebrew Eliezer is the same as the Greek Lazarus doesn’t mean the two stories are intertwined in meaning. Joshua and Jesus are the same name, but that doesn’t mean their stories relate to each other or that we can get the meaning of one story from the other. The Bible has plenty to say about the relationship between Jews, Gentiles, and the Gospel, but that is certainly not the point of this story.

I had mentioned to you when we began this conversation about Luke 16 that there was a lot in the story. When I originally wrote to you about it, I covered the major meanings of the text, but since you are desiring more, I am glad to supply more. I just didn’t want to make my first post too long. I will try not to repeat the things I said before, so because I don’t mention them again doesn’t mean they aren’t still part of the meaning of the story.

First of all, we don’t even know if the story is a parable, an actual event, or a story Jesus made up (that is not a parable) to teach particular truths. So we are not necessarily looking for the meaning of each element of the story as if it were a parable, because we just don’t know. But we can still decipher the teachings of the story (as I did in my first post). But I will continue.

In the Gospel of Luke, as I have already mentioned, “rich” and “poor” mean two separate things. First of all, he really is talking about rich and poor, and how greed and lack of caring will be judged. But “rich” in Luke symbolizes godlessness, and “poor” symbolizes godliness, so there is a symbolic undercurrent to what Jesus is talking about. On with the analysis.

There is a rich man, who is the image of the greedy and uncaring, but he is also an image of godlessness. The purple and fine linen are details to explain just how rich the man is, how able he is to give to others, even without sacrifice, but also representing the depth of ungodliness. His station is extreme.

Lazarus is at the other extreme, suffering in abject poverty, even covered with sores to represent the depth of his suffering. In contrast to the man who has everything, Lazarus has nothing. He defines the lowest, the neediest, the least of all.

Before we go on, a bit of cultural information: In their society, they often regarded the rich as blessed of God, and the suffering as having done something sinful (or his parents had, and he was suffering for it). This is a view that Jesus proves false, but it was a view of their culture. One of the points of the story is that Jesus is going to prove this wrong. The world doesn’t operate according to the Retribution Principle (the good get blessed in this life, and the sinful get judged in this life). It’s not the way life works, and it’s not the way God works.

In time they both die. The poor man, who symbolizes those who seek God, is taken to a place of comfort. We would call it heaven. The rich man, who symbolizes those who do not seek God, is taken to a place of torment. We would call it hell. Ironically, Jewish folklore often speaks of the righteous being carried away by angels; Jesus debunks that notion also. Notice they are both there immediately; there is no intermediate state. We are being told a story of accountability for how we live our lives and the decisions we make.

What is Abraham’s side (or Abraham’s bosom)? In John 1.18, the Logos is in the bosom of the Father. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, according to the Scriptures, are in heaven and welcome those who come (Matthew 8.11). The bosom is usually a place of favor (John 13.23). For the Jew, to be in Abraham’s bosom is to be in Paradise. We would understand this all to mean heaven. Lazarus went to heaven (appropriate for the godly). See also Luke 23.43. Being with Abraham in Paradise meant eternal fellowship with God.

The rich man was in Hades and in torment. He symbolizes the ungodly, the proud, the uncaring (cf. Matt. 25.45-46). His wealth doesn't necessarily mean he was blessed by God, and it certainly doesn’t mean he was righteous. Don’t be fooled by visual impressions and society’s evaluations. He is separated from fellowship with God. That’s what the “gulf” is.

Aha, the tables are turned. Lazarus had to look up from the ground to the rich man’s table. Now the rich man looks up (v. 23). Who is “Father Abraham”? It’s possible, if it’s really a story, that it’s actually Abraham, the patriarch to which the man owes his blood descent. In that sense the Jews think of him as the gate keeping, just as nowadays we talk about St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. If it’s a parable, Father Abraham symbolizes the one who has authority over eternal destiny.

The rich man hopes for mercy because he is a descendant of Abraham, but we discover that judgment is not based on ethnicity or religious claims, but who is in fellowship with God. He is in agony and wishes to drink of the water. Salvation is often depicted as eating and drinking in the kingdom of God. In contrast, thirst is often symbolic or separation from God and rejection from the kingdom (remember Jesus said “I thirst” on the cross, which was both literal and symbolic). In the Old Testament, thirst and death by thirst are often presented as divine punishment (Isa. 5.13; 50.2; 65.13; Hosea 2.3; Psalm 106.33; Song of Solomon 11.14). He wants Lazarus to wait on him, to refresh him, and to show some mercy. He wants the water on his tongue. In Isaiah 6.5, the lips are a symbol of morality. Does this mean he wants his guilt taken away? It’s hard to tell, but it’s possible. He is in torment and wants relief. Being separated from God is the worst agony.

Notice v. 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 and you are in agony.’ “ Here the reversal of role and status shows the story to be symbolic. His wealth was a symbol of godlessness, and Lazarus’s poverty was a symbol of those who seek God. The point is neither that wealthy people will all be punished, or that none will be punished, or that all poor people are being judged by God, or that all poor people go to heaven. Rather, the point is clearly that of spiritual position (the symbolic interpretation of the story) and the consequent eternity.

The “great gulf” is not a geographical one whose width and depth could be measured, but that there is no way for people who are in heaven to help those in hell to come over. There is no intercession and no mediation. Death pronounces the finality of decisions made in life. There are no second chances. It is appointed to us to die once, and then comes the judgment (Heb. 9.27). What you do in this life echoes in eternity, no turning back, no turning back.

Who are the five brothers? They are the ungodly still on the earth, that’s all. The rich man begs that they be given evidence so they make a godly decision. The answer comes back that they have been given plenty of evidence, and they have the Scriptures, and have made their choices. The man protests, “It’s not enough! If someone comes back from the dead, that will convince them!” The reply comes, “If they don’t believe all that they have been given, they won’t believe anything more or bigger.” Miracles and visions in themselves don’t melt stony hearts. People need to repent, and if they don’t, an existential, tangible experience of God won’t make a difference. Tangibility is not the convincing factor. Tangibility is ultimately as subjective as anything else. Our eyes, ears, and senses can be fooled. Ultimately our guts and brains cooperate to determine what we choose to believe, and our sense only play a part in the drama.

That’s what the story means.

[Head William]

I guess you win, but what does it matter if you win or I lose. How does that point me to Christ? I thought your objective as a Christian was to show clearly in love the error of my ways. I don't believe any of what you've shared, so, must I believe exactly as you to be right before God?

[jimwalton]

It wasn’t a matter of winning, as you say. My objective is always to point you to Christ. All I was doing was answering your question about the parable. My hope is in one of the messages of the parable: one must decide for Christ in this life, because there aren’t any second chances. God has made himself known through the Word and through the world, and as a student of the Word, I hope that in the course of conversation you’ll see Him.

It’s clear you don’t believe any of what I shared. All I can do is tell the truth about what the Bible says, and what it is about. Whether or not you believe is up to you. We’re all accountable for our decisions and behavior. You have obviously been hurt badly enough by people’s (Christians’) behavior or words that you are angry at religionists and consider yourself a heathen. I don’t know what happened to you, but my hope is that by respectful conversation and honest answers, maybe you’ll have a different impression of Christians and the Bible and give some consideration to the claims of Christ.

You don’t have to believe exactly as I do to be right before God. Your interpretation of the parable, your opinions about the end times, and other conversations that we have are secondary to the truth that God loves you, Jesus died for you, and he invites you to a relationship with him by faith if you will repent from your sins and turn to him. That’s what’s important, not believing exactly as I do.