"]I thought I ought to look again at the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. I said to myself, “Just look at what the text actually says and ask what it means to take this text seriously as a teaching of the Lord.” So I have started to try doing that. …This parable is one of the common “proofs” for ECT, so thought others might be interested in reading Robin’s latest thoughts on it.
Here’s my reply of the blog:
Without trying to shoehorn Isreal into the interpretation, I’d like to take a straightforward veiw of the text.
I’m more in line with what Matt posted:
“Blomberg suggests that it was the fact that the rich man was in proximity to the poor man every day and did nothing about his state (dogs licking sores, begging for food, etc), when there are laws from the books of Moses that demand he help the poor man.”
The way Jesus sets up the parable, one immediately gets an uneasy impression of the rich man: “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:”
This is someone who enjoyed all the pleasures life had to offer. He probably spared no expense in furnishing his house or buying the latest model camel. The clothing he wore suggested a high social status. He hung out with the best.
Conversly, we have Lazarus, who is at the lowest end of the spectrum:
"And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores."
How he came to this state, the passage doesn’t say. We may infer that whatever disease he contracted may have contributed to his status. Someone with leprosy, for example, are viewed as outcasts. Maybe he couldn’t find employment because of his sondition. So he has to resort to begging.
I believe that the most important point parable is in Jesus placing Lazarus at the gate of the rich man. One can imagine the rich man coming to and fro from his house and passing the beggar in the streets. The beggar and the rich man know each other’s presence.
Moreover, it is implied that the rich man doesn’t give much thought to Lazarus in passing, for the latter would even DESIRE the crumbs from the rich man’s table, apparently not even being granted that. Which leads me to believe that the rich man was very callous toward Lazarus, even though he begged for food everyday. Nor would he offer any medical attention to the poor lad.
It is this attitude, then, that is the rich man’s fall. Just as when the young rich ruler in Matthew 19 held on to his riches, so did this rich man. It isn’t the fact that he was rich that kept him from eternal life, it was his attitude about his riches. Conversely, in Luke 19, Zacchaeus was commended by Jesus after he gave half his goods to the poor and repaid fourfold whom he owed, with Jesus saying, “This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.” One wonders if Zacchaeus didn’t take heed to the parable three chapters prior.
Assofaras Lazarus is concern, James tells us, “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?” The Lord was apparently all Lazarus had.
"Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.
Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh." - Luke 6:20-21
Love & Peace,
Dondi
Here are two links which do support the Rich Man=Israel thesis:
mercifultruth.com/lazarus.html
bible-truths.com/lazarus.html
They provide convincing (to me at least) explanations of all of the details (purple, linen, dogs, the flame (singular BTW), the significance of “Father Abraham,” the chasm, the five brothers, resurrection, and the identities of the rich man and Lazarus), which I think is a huge point (even though details in parables typically don’t matter), and is a lot more than can be said for the traditional interpretation.
My only disagreements are (1) both of the links posit soul-sleep (a minor point which can be agreed with or ignored depending on your views) and (2) their explanations of the chasm differ, with the first being more convincing to me.
I believe that people miss the major points of this parable and get hung up on trying to use it to teach something it doesn’t. Note that the ONLY reason mentioned that the rich man was in torment and Lazarus was being comforted is because the rich man was rich and the poor man was poor. How many people then and today equate riches with righteousness? Dare I say, most! And yet this passage affirms that in this situation, Lazarus, though extremely poor was righteous; and the rich man, though rich was not righteous.
Also note that the passage doesn’t distinguish whether or not Lazarus was sick and poor due to his own sins or not; either is possible. It could be that Lazarus, having waisted his family inheritance on riotous living which led to poverty and sickness, was a drunk and depressed out of his mind. Or it could be that he was an orphan, born physically handicapped. The passage just doesn’t say or imply which case; thus such should not be assumed and any conclusions drawn from such an assumption are not valid.
It’s also noteworthy that this parable follows the parable of the shrewd manager, where the manager who is fired is commended for being proactive though dishonest. The point of the parable is that one needs to be proactive; it’s not commending dishonesty.
One should also take into consideration that a primary theme of Luke’s is the plight of the poor and outcasts, and a call to help them. Of the four Gospels, Luke’s has the strongest call to social activism, looking after the poor, the needy, and the religious/social outcasts of Jewish society. Of course, this parable fits right in with that theme. And considering this parable is ONLY record in Luke, I find this very significant.
Also note that Luke calls the place where the rich man was, Hades, a non-specific term for realm of the dead, the grave, and did NOT use the word Tartarus. IF Luke had intended to convey the concept of ECT, Tartarus would have been a much better word. Luke using the non-specific word Hades indicates to me that such was not the point of the passage.
Another point made by this passage is that God is Just, that God takes everything into consideration, even how much we’ve suffered in this life. It seems that the more we’ve suffered in this life, the more comfort we have to look forward to in the life to come.
It is also interesting that Luke does not later tell the story of the real Lazarus being raised from the dead. A point in this parable is how that if people will not listen to the revealed word of God through live messengers (Moses and the prophets), they would not listen to someone who raised from the dead! And in John we see this played out in real life in the story of the ressurection of Lazarus. In fact, the Pharisees sought to kill Lazarus after he was raised from the dead because they were so hardened against the word of God, especially the present day revelation of God.
Much is also made over the uncrossable chasm in this parable, but is that chasm meant to be taken literally, metaphorically, or not much of a point at all? And should we assume that when it says “no one”, it includes that God is not able to cross that chasm? Of course not. Uncrossable means that it is uncrossable by man; it’s assumed that God can be anywhere, is anywhere He pleases to be. In explaining the Gospel, how many times has the picture of the uncrossable chasm been drawn with man on one side and God on the other; but God crosses that chasm with the cross! If not for the grace, mercy, and love of God we’d all be stuck in bondage to evil, tormented by evil from within and without, stuck in this present evil age, as Paul calls it.
Well, anyhow, if the concept of ECT, Hell, was well established in the rest of scripture, and was something that was especially affirmed in the Law of Moses, then we could safely assume that ECT was being warned of in this passage. But considering ECT is not warned of in the Law and the prophets, then it’s unlikely that Jesus or Luke would be using this passage to teach something new, like ECT. Rather, the point of the passage is 1) God is just, taking into consideration even how much we’ve suffered or been blessed in this life. 2) How we treat others, especially the poor and needy around us, is important. 3) We need to be careful to listen to the revelation of God we’ve recieved for if we harden ourselves against that, we won’t even listen to God speak through someone who is raised from the dead!
To interpret this passage to affirm ECT is to, well, misuse it, I believe. To me, the fact that ECT is not warned of by Moses or the Prophets is foundational. And I do not believe that Jesus’ or Luke’s 1st Century audience would have understood this passage to be teaching a new doctrine of ECT.
I always wondered what Lazarus’ first name was. 
Great post Sherman. 
A good little book I came across a few years ago by the title “The Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus” by Ivan L. Burgener. It’s available through Pickington & Sons at www.StudyShelf.com
Lazarus means “God’s help”. It’s the Greek version of the name Eleazar.
Eleazar was Abraham’s Gentile steward and heir to his fortune. But when Isaac arrived, Eleazar got nothing. Even so, he remained faithful.
To me, this is conclusive. The rich man is Abraham’s son, the nation of Israel. He wears purple, the symbol of royalty and priesthood. He is rich, possessing the Law and the Prophets. Lazarus is the Gentiles. He is sick and poor, hungering for God’s word. He is comforted only by the dogs of idolatry. But Christ has come. The day of judgment. Israel is rejected and find themselves in torment. The Gentiles rest in Abraham’s embrace.
The first shall be last. The last shall be first.
Allan,
Interesting find. Do you know of anyone else that has made this correlation between Lazarus and Eleazir of Abrahams house?
It certainly is right in line with Jesus constant theme of Israel rejecting the Messiah and it opening the door to the gentiles. Predicting the fall of Jerusalem as spoken of in Jeremiah, the Ghenna fire, Withered fig Tree etc.
My English bible has the spelling of Eleazar in Genesis as Eleaz(ir), For anyone that knows Hebrew, does that match up with the greek word Lazarus or is Eleaz(ar) a different word?
I found the connection of names in Wiki. Fascinating, eh? It really adds weight to the Israel-Gentile interpretation of the parable.
The idea that Hades is a place in the underworld where all the dead go, one section, a pleasant place for the rightous, and the other a place of suffering for the unrighteous, was a common idea among Judaism in Christ’s day. Indeed, the Jewish historian Josephus (37-100 A.D) wrote “Discourse on Hades” where is desciption fits well with that which Christ gave in His parable, only in greater detail.
My thought is that, in his parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, Jesus used a common idea of the afterlife as understood by the Judaism of His day, in order to bring out what He was trying to teach through this parable, i.e. that even if it were possible for someone to come back from the dead and warn the Jewish people of the consequences of their sins, they still would not repent.
Paidion,
I hear you. How much do we all relate to this very point. For there are things I hate I do, and the things I want to do I don’t. I find myself often knowing what is right and yet still doing what is wrong. Truly it’s a struggle of flesh and spirit. If someone were to come back from the dead, would I do what is wrong? I probably would. Either I begin to question my own convictions (as John the Baptist did when he sent his disciples to ask Jesus if he was the one) or I begin to question my sanity (as if my seeing the dead was real at all). I have my doubts miracles will set me straight.
As Paidon said, I think Jesus was referring to common beliefs and themes, but changing a few elements to make a point.
In one of the books I read about the history of “Hell”, I found the following. This is the summary of a story found in ancient Egyptian literature. The story was found on a scrap of papyrus that dates from the time of Jesus. Those whom Jesus interacted with would have most likely known this story.
My first reactions to reading this story and meditating on how it relates to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus can be found as the most recent post on my blog - which I rarely update anymore…
Hope this gives a bit more cultural perspective.
The narrative that climaxes with the Rich Man and Lazarus begins in Luke 13:22
Look again at verse 28-30. It’s the Rich Man and Lazarus in plain language.
Luke (a Gentile) expounds this theme for the next few chapters.
In Ch 14, we have Jesus telling a Pharisee that those who think themselves most important (Israel) will be replaced by the least important (the Gentiles). Israel had a feast, but failed to invite the lame, blind and crippled Gentiles. In v 15, the King’s friends (Israel) do not come to his feast, so instead he invites the beggars off the streets (the Gentiles). In v 34, salt (Israel) is good, but if it loses its saltiness, it will be thrown out.
Ch15. The lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son all refer to Israel and the Gentiles. “I have sheep not of this fold." The prodigal son is the Gentiles. The older brother is Israel.
Ch 16: Israel has failed as God’s manager. Jesus advises them to be shrewd, to make their peace with the Gentiles while there is still time. V 10, Jesus calls Israel to be faithful, to serve God not money. V16, everyone, even the Gentiles, are forcing their way into the Kingdom. V18, Israel has divorced God and is committing adultery.
Then v19, the Rich Man and Lazarus. Israel is out, the Gentiles are in.
Ch 17, Israel has caused people to stumble. God rebukes them. He will forgive them seven times in a day. Therefore repent! v 7 Do your duty, Israel, like a faithful servant!
And finally, the healing of the 10 lepers. The one who came back to offer thanks was… a… Gentile.
interesting…and despite those warnings that sound so very final being given to Israel…Paul later says “All Israel will be saved”
that makes this passage actually quite difficult for the ECT crowd, i’d have thought!
Paul, as the apostle to the gentiles, would have been acutely aware of Luke’s emphasis. I suspect this is why he wrote Romans. Israel’s rejection distressed Paul so deeply he said he’d willing be rejected in their place. It tormented him. Paul knew Christ had warned of Israel’s rejection over and over, and many of Jesus’ storied were heavy with finality. The rich man cannot cross the gulf. The door to the feast is shut. Night has fallen on the foolish virgins. Paul wrestles with this in Romans, with his argument climaxing in Ch 11. God’s promise is irrevocable. All Israel will be saved. Even more, God binds everyone into disobedience in order to have mercy on us all. Paul has found his answer, and he bursts into his great doxology of praise: For from him and through him and to him are all things. After this, we have some moral exhortation and general house keeping.
Excellent find Allen. Both this observation of Paul in Romans 11 as it relates to the Luke theme and also showing the Rich Man and Lazarus as fully within the context of the Israel/gentiles rejection/acceptance.
I’m still just at the beggining stages of my study of the Hell passages in the context of universalism, and the Lazarus story has been hard to understand but now makes a whole lot of sense.
I will have to go back and reread the Gospel of Luke to see the full context of the discussion in which the Lazarus story is placed in, but makes alot of sense. I love how he Forgives them and though they reject he offers again and again and again, and even Paul points out that in the end they will be saved. Hmmm sounds like a very forgiving God. Slow to Anger. Longsuffering.
Note that Jesus is talking to Pharisees here and using their concept of hell since Hellanism was the rule for what? 200 years. This was just Jesus relating to them on their level…fine linen…purple cloth - you know.
Hi everyone. If I may add my opion to this parable, I would like to say I believe it was a parable about the prophecy from Dan 8, and from John in Matt 3:10. The destruction of Judea at the hands of Rome and the end of life as Israel knew it. The richman is Judea and in Matt 24 Christ talks about what the end of the Judean age will be like. Lazerus with Abraham represents the new age of the gentile.