So today in church we talked about hell, and my pastor used the very popular story of Lazarus and the Rich Man to point to the existence of a literal place of all-consuming, everlasting fiery torment. I’ve heard discussion from both Universalist and ECT camps about this parable, but I was very interested to get the opinions from people here. Surely, this is one of the “go to” verses for ECT-supporters?
Thank you, all!
Katherine
Well Kate – I think your Pastor’s wrong. If it is about ECT the message is that Rich People who don’t care for the poor are going to hell – and the bit about who is going to hell and why is not so popular with many ECT preachers. But lots more can be said.
First it is a parable – it’s a story with a point rather than a treatise of exact information about the afterlife; and the story already existed when Jesus told it in folk lore versions. Jesus retains some of the folklore motifs – Lazarus the poor man is the friend of animals – and the dogs lick his sores (and dog’s spit is actually medicinal when nothing else is available); and he ends up residing in Abraham’s bosom. In earlier versions the rich man’s ghost does come back from the dead to warn his brothers. So Jesus appears to be saying get real and just take care of your poor brothers and sisters – forget the dramatics.
Second, the Rich Man is not in Gehenna as such – he is in Hades the place of the dead. And there is comedy in the parable – he still thinks he can order people about so he hasn’t yet got wise to his situation. So it’s a parable addressed to the living rather than the dead telling of ironic reversals in the priorities of the kingdom.
There has been a rich history of interpretation of the parable. Luther was convinced that the action of the parable takes place in the Rich mans conscience as did Luther’s opponent Erasmus – who concluded from it that ‘Hell is nothing but the torments of conscience’. Christian Universalists have noted the Rich Man’s concern for his brothers – and ECT proponents in the past have found this difficult and in need of explaining. Surely someone in hell would be too self absorbed to care about anyone else. Therefore the seeds of virtue and redemption can grow even in Hades –yes this interpretation goes back very early to some of the Greek Fathers. Some say – well he’s only concerned for his brothers because in the time of the parable people saw their self identity as bound up in kinship relations in a way that we do not today.
Whatever –it’s a parable and indeed there is another tradition of seeing Dives as representing the Jews and Lazarus as representing the Gentiles (in the light of the history of Christian persecution of Jews I feel a bit uneasy about this however). And yet another would focus on the theme of one who comes back from the dead as being an anticipation of the resurrection and therefore being a special rebuke to either the Sadducees (who did not believe in resurrection) or the Pharisees (who did - or was it reincarnation they believed in? I think probably not). However, a parable in is not an allegory - it’s more like a joke; you either get the punch line or you don’t - and the punch line here does not concern ECT in my view.
And I think Luther and Erasmus – agreeing for once – got it just about right; we should care for the poor in our own different ways, for God has special care for the poor and the weak and the downtrodden. If we don’t we create a gulf, a gap in creation.
All the best old chum - and rest merry
Dick
Just wanted to say - I know there are other ways of looking at this parable (and I’ve hinted at some). No one has to agree with my interpretation - but I think most of us will agree that this parable cannot be made the keystone for ECT -
I think we’ll all agree that Dives is in Hades not in Gehenna also. 
blessings to all
Dick
Abraham tells the rich man there is no water to quench his thirst. But the Spirit says, “Come, all you who are thirsty.”
Abraham says no one can bridge the gap between heaven and hell. But this is precisely what Jesus does. He descends into hell, and ascends into heaven. He opens the door.
What’s impossible for Abraham is possible for God. ie. It’s impossible to be reconciled by circumcision etc, but only by the grace of God as revealed in Christ.
Agreed - now that’s another level of interpretation that really does make sense to me
Thanks, you two! Makes more sense than the literal interpretation, and you all word explanations much more clearly than internet articles.
I had a long talk about the sermon with my mom today, and the notion of ECT disturbs her, as well. Actually, we didn’t even stay for the entire sermon, as my mom knows how panicky I feel around fire and brimstone talk. We feel a bit lost at the moment, as we are both undoubtedly followers of Christ, but it seems there is no church family out there for us.
Oh, and Prof, did you see the private message saying I didn’t see the link to your friend’s art site? I’d love to see it!
~ Katherine
The Discourse With the Greeks Concerning Hades is attributed to Josephus, the Jewish historian. That discourse described Hades in much the same way as Jesus did in his parable, except in much more detail.
My view is that the idea of people’s souls going to Hades after death was a common view among the Jews of Jesus’ day. He used this common view as the basis for his parable. The purpose of his parable was to indicate that even if a person could return from the dead, with a report of the suffering of the unrighteous in Hades, the Jews still would not repent.
I do kind of see the parable as being a role reversal regarding the Jews and the Gentiles, and I confess it didn’t even occur to me that this would cause problems with people persecuting the Jews but Dick has a point. I think though, that the biggest problem was in the church seeing the Jews as having been cast off by God on their refusal to receive Jesus (those that refused anyway, though traditional and Christian Jews both suffered in many horrible atrocities against their ethnic group).
But be that as it may . . . here’s my take on the parable and yes . . . I got it from Augustine of all people. IMO, even he had some very astute things to say though he totally missed it on ECT. journeyintotheson.com/2012/0 … g-lazarus/ There are two short posts. Just click through on the top or bottom right.
Love, Cindy
I’ve always been struck by Abraham’s emotional indifference to one of his sons in dire need. You can almost see him yawning as the rich man splashes about in the flames. Abraham’s not a very attractive character in this story, and maybe that was another point. The Jews were mighty proud of their great ancestor, all that he represented, and their familial connection to him. Jesus was not so impressed.
By contrast, were Jesus written into the story, and not Abraham, he would have thrown himself into the flames to haul the poor man out. That’s the difference between law and grace.
Hi Allan
That’s another interesting and pellucid interpretation– as part of your wider Christological interpretation of the parable; which I think is great
All that I’d say is -
The parable also does have a primary level of meaning about the relationship between the Rich and the Poor
And given what has happened in history between Christians and Jews we can go with your interpretation without being overly or arrogantly supercessionist. Abraham can have a more universal meaning here– he, as ‘father’, can represent the feeling of privilege and belonging that come with religious fellowship both through birth and through conversion that are precious and good but can become excluding and idolatrous and an occasion for terrible sin (in Christians too – who often suffer from shrinking Father syndrome). We have to see ourselves in both Dives and Lazarus I guess.
Hi Piaidon –
At Easter, I had a huge rummage about the quotation attributed to Josephus concerning Hades. This attribution was questioned even in the ancient world. It does the rounds today because William Whitson the eighteenth century English Arian who translated Josephus – and whose translation is still popular – believed it. But it seems certain that the passage actually comes from a homily by Hippolytus of Rome a few hundred years after Josephus and it was interpolated into Josephus later. However – from the same bit of digging I learnt that ,yes, some of the features of the details of Hades in this parable are found in Christian writings earlier than Hippolytus – like the Martyrdom of St Perpetua; but in these writings loving prayers for the dead can actually build a bridge across the chasm. St Perpetua’s prayers, for example, bridge that chasm for her little brother who died of face cancer while still a pagan.
Hi Cindy –thanks for being gracious as ever – and yes Kate, do, do have a look at Cindy’s website; it’s very impressive!!!
Love to all
Dick
P.S> I don’t usually get into debates about biblical interpretation these days - but I saw Miss Tea sounding a bit anxious on line and I was the only person about at the time.
I think Luke indicates what he thought Jesus meant by the parable when he records Jesus saying the following just prior to recording the story (parable, common fable, real life event, who know?) of the rich man and Lazarus. Jesus says:
13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. 15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of others, but God knows your hearts. What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight.
The Pharisees loved money and likely believed that poverty = unrighteousness and riches = righteousness. We run into this today. How often do we see someone who is homeless and “assume” that they are unsaved and likely drug addicts or drunks, that if they’d get right with God then God would help them not be homeless. God sees things differently though. He knows the struggles a person faces, the evil/demons that torment them from within and without, and loves us anyhow. He sees the poverty of our souls as much more important than the poverty of our pockets!
A broken and contrite heart is of much more value to God than all of our wealth. “Blessed are the poor.” Lk. 6:20. Luke had a passion for the poor, for the sick, the disinfranchised of society.
Good one Sherman 
I also see it as a warning of the perils of being rich. “To whom much is given much is required.” For me, coming to have faith in Jesus to save all has actually made Judgment much heavier for me personally. No longer can I dismiss the judgment passages as not applying to me because I’m saved! Now I must face them and admit there might be fire in judgment for me. I look at the story of the rich man and Lazarus and frankly, it scares the hell out of me - literally! And I think that’s what it is suppose to do. I was born in a loving caring family, surrounded by friends and family that loved me. In comparison to the rich man in the parable, I’m ultra rich when considering the freedoms, technology, conveniences, eductation, etc. that I take for granted every day. So this parable, story, fable (who knows), scares the hell out of me, and inspires me to be much more conscious of the less fortunate around me! And I think that’s what it is meant to do.
Another point is that in any case this is not the end of the story. Even if this parable shows Gehenna (in effect) starting in Hades (which I would have no problem with), the Rich Man will be resurrected out of hades eventually, and then a lot of the hopeless-seeming details of the story simply don’t apply anymore.
and I have a question about the parable of prodigal Son,
I guess the good son refers to the people of the first resurrection,
and the one who repented refers to the people of the 2nd resurrection, or it is just talking about the repentance like
the parable of lost sheep? I think even the parable of lost sheep is talking about the UR,
that God wants even the last sheep
and about the Churches, I think satan is not in clubs, he is in churches in order to make distance between us and
our Father by making him Hitler
and I’m in doubt of soul consciousness, if the wicked are going to be punished in hades, what is the purpose of 2nd resurrection?
even Jesus didn’t said be afraid of the one who can kill the both body and soul in hades 
but Gehenna
One great thing about the prodigal son parable is that it can be interpreted a number of valid ways.
But I don’t know why the older son would represent the people of the first resurrection, since presumably they’d know better than to complain about the salvation of the younger son. (Also there’s no first-resurrection parallel for them in the parable.) Maybe they represent the survivors into the millennium, or those born during that time, who come to think their status as ‘never having fallen’ must be useless if God is willing to save people after the general resurrection (still to come in their future), and so their underlying resentment at serving God becomes exposed.
That would fit well with the oddity of Satan managing the greatest final rebellion after the passing of the millennium reign; but then they wouldn’t really be the older brother, since the great majority of people not yet saved from hades were there first. 
We’re probably overthinking the parable trying to make it work out in that much detail. 
If it serves (among other things) to warn Christians not to resent the salvation of punished sinners out of death and destruction (as the father describes the younger son’s condition), that’s good enough and allows a wider scope of application in principle.
Bodily resurrection is one sign of God’s commitment to restoration, instead of just trashing people (and Nature). I gather from testimony like 1 Peter’s that people can be saved out of hades directly by God even before the first resurrection; but those who refuse to repent must stay until the general resurrection. If they still refuse to repent, Gehenna continues until they learn to reject their sins, but they continue in their bodily life which is itself a testimony of God’s continuing commitment to saving them.
So in that day, the impenitent can see what repentance brings (bodily “eonian” life, not merely ongoing bodily life), and they also have immediate evidence that God intends the same for them and isn’t only being spiteful (because they have in fact been bodily resurrected, too).
I expect the body helps lead them to repentance in its own way and teaches them through its own ways of suffering: before the resurrection they suffer for fondling their sins, after the resurrection they continue that but add bodily suffering back, as further inescapable evidence that they should stop fondling their sins.
What would be pointless would be to resurrect them hopelessly to ongoing life, and even more pointless (if that was possible) to resurrect them only to annihilate them out of existence!
Interpreting parables is challenging. We have a tendency to overanalyse them, to try to make everything represent something, when they usually are meant to communicate one truth and maybe allude to some others. The story ended asking the question whether or not the older brother would repent his wrong attitude towards his brother, rejoice that he was restored to the family, and join in on the party or would the older brother would continue to have a selfish wrong attitude - like the Pharisees whom Jesus was talking to - and miss out on the party! Of course the story also, I believe, highlights God’s love for all people, for his children, for all those created in his image; and it highlights that God never gives up looking. But the primary message of the parable was to the Pharisees, those who thought they were righteous and serving God but not sharing in the father’s passionate love for their lost brother; the Pharisees needed to repent and rejoice that the lost were being saved, reconciled to God, returning home!
In context of the other parables, the primary message is that God does not give up searching for those whom He loves until He is successful in reclaiming them. The shepherd saved the lost goat (1 out of 100). The woman found the lost coin (1/10th of her dowry, likely worth 1+ year salary). And the father ultimately saw his son (1 of 2). And the parables highlight how much joy is in heaven over the repentance of anyone/everyone!