Wednesday, January 7, 2015

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
Luke 16:19-31



One-third of Christ’s teaching found in the Gospels is in the form of parables. Although some believe they are fairy tales or folk tales not actual events. All the parables of Christ’s were given from the standpoint of reality found in either common experiences of mankind or nature. Parables have a common element, they are based on reality. A parable is taken from the realm of worldly reality and communicates a spiritual reality. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is no exception.

Setting of the Parable

This parable is found in a series of parables given in the company of both his disciples and the Pharisees and scribes. In Luke 15, the Lord IS attacked for eating with publicans and sinners. Jesus, therefore, gives three parables that deal with the wrong attitude expressed toward people. In chapter 16, the Lord turns His attention to disciples and gives a parable showing the wrong attitude and use of material possessions (16:1-13). The Pharisees react by “scoffing at Him” (16:14). The Greek word ekmukterizo, means to turn up your nose, sneer at, or ridicule. The reason for scoffing is that they were “lovers of money” (16:14). After confronting their attitude (16:15-18), Jesus gives the parable.

The Emphasis of the Parable

The emphasis of the parable is the rich man. Everything in the parable focuses on him. Lazarus is used as a point of contrast. The contrasts are numerous, as well as being sharp and clear: life/afterlife: rich/poor; Heaven/Hell, to name a few. The contrasts are used to show the results of wrong attitudes toward people and material possessions. It condemns such shameful handling of such precious gifts and shows the just compensation that results.

The Parable

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is divided into a simple threefold division: their life, death, and afterlife.

The Lives of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:19-21)

The life of the rich man is one of sumptuousness and selfishness. He is dressed like royalty: “clothed in purple and fine linen.” Hendricksen says “His living day by day in dazzling splendor marks him as a showoff, a strutting peacock.”[1] The word “fared sumptuously” indicates he lived festively. He was a party animal. Such luxury and attitude produced indifference. Indifference will dam up a heart of sympathy and make one blind one to the gate of opportunity.

In contrast the life of the beggar, Lazarus, was one of suffering, need, and shame (16:20-21). He laid in his misery, hoping for mercy from the unmerciful. No mercy came except from the dogs. What an indictment of man’s inhumanity to man! He received no grace but that of God’s (Lazarus means God helps).

The Death of the Rich Man and Lazarus (16:22)

The only common ground between the two men is death. It is the common heritage of all. The appointment of death is sure (Hebrews 9:27). The suffering of the beggar and the feasting of the rich man ended on common ground—the grave.

In death there rings a noticeable difference between the two. Lazarus was “called by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.” The phrase denotes comfort, peace, and blessedness that is absent from what we read of the rich man. The rich man “died and was buried.” Hendricksen notes: “Note the meaningful contrast: nothing is said about the beggar’s burial; on the other hand, nothing is said here about the rich man’s soul as to what happened to it at the moment of death.”[2]

The Afterlife of Lazarus and the Rich Man (16:23-31).

The emphasis of this section is on the rich man rather than Lazarus. Verse 23 continues the through of the last half of verse 22 concerning the rich man. He died, and now we are informed of his destination—“in Hell.” This must have come as a surprise for the rich man. According to Pharisaic doctrine, he should have been transported into God’s presence and eternal life. That did not happen. Instead of blessedness, he was tormented in Hell. The word is Hades and refers to the region of the underworld, a region where spirits who are lost await the final judgment.

Contrary to popular opinion, Abraham’s bosom is not a part of Hades. Marten Woudstra makes this clear:
Hades and Abraham’s bosom are distinct places, not two compartments of the same place. If Abraham’s bosom were intended to have reference to one of the divisions of Hades, then the other division would have been mentioned with equal precision. Hades is mentioned in connection with Dives [the rich man] only; the other place is “afar off.” Hades is associated with being in torment; the latter appears to be the consequence of being in Hades. If Hades were a neutral concept there, then the contrast with the rich man’s former sumptuous state would not have been expressed.[3]

Christ does not communicate the doctrine known as soul sleep in this passage. There is clearly conscious existence after death. They talk (16:24), recognized others (16:23), feel (16:24), and show concern (16:28). Each man is conscious of who they are, where they are, and what they feel. They are not in an unconscious state of sleep.

Jesus communicates the certainty and reality of blessedness of the saved and the future of the unsaved. There is a Hell for those who “obey not the gospel of Christ” (2 Thessalonians 1:8). It confirms there is no second chance after death. Nowhere does the rich man who has died ever try to repent or express any hope of changing his location. At death one’s eternal destiny is settled. Luke 26:26 declares, “there is a great gulf fixed; so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.”  It is impossible to bridge the gulf. The gulf is sterizo, indicating a permanently and firmly fixed gulf, established or secured. The choices made in life cannot be reversed in the afterlife. Today is the day of salvation, not tomorrow. Faith is a choice that must be made today. There is no second chance after the grave.

Jesus closes with the blindness of unbelief. The rich man begs for someone from the dead to go to his brothers. He believes they will be converted (16:30). But unbelief will not see it that way. Lazarus (not the one here, but the one in John 11) came back from the dead and there was no great conversion. Christ would later rise from the dead. But those who did not believe Moses and the Prophets were not convinced, nor converted (cf. Matthew 28:11-15).

This parable is directed to the Pharisees (16:14). It attacks three popular doctrines that they held, and is still evident today.

  1. The Prosperity Gospel. The Pharisees held that wealth was a sign of righteousness and blessing of God. It was a sign of God’s approval. This gospel is being revived today. However, the parable brings out that this is a false gospel. Christ revealed that the possession of riches does not guarantee salvation, nor is it the evidence of God’s approval. Money is neither a sign of salvation nor sanctification. Wealth along with men who put their trust in wealth will perish.
  2. The Doctrine of Poverty. Corresponding to the above doctrine, the Pharisees believed that a person who was poor indicated his sinfulness. According to their view, the poor were hated by God, thus condemned. Being poor indicate God’s disapproval. Again this is a false doctrine. The lack of material things does not indicate God’s judgment. Lazarus came into God’s blessing not because he was poor financially, but poor in spirit. We are not to interpret that the lack of riches precludes salvation. Pentecost points out: “The beggar was “poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3) as well as poor in material blessings; because he was poor in spirit, he had his part in the presence of God.”[4]
  3. Salvation by Association. The Pharisees believed that because they were sons of Abraham, salvation was theirs. They “believed that Father Abraham sat at the gates of Hades and would not let one of his sons pass through.”[5] Neither being a physical descendant, nor being a member of an organized body, brings one salvation. Salvation does not come because one is born into a Christian family, or is a member of a local church. Salvation comes by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-10). We are not to trust in riches, or the lack of them; but we are to trust in Christ and His work. We are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24).




[1]  William Hendricksen: NTC: THE GOSPEL OF LUKE, [Baker, Grand Rapids, 1978], 782.
[2]  Ibid, 784.
[3]  Marten H. Woudstra, “Abraham’s Bosom,” BAKER’S DICTIONARY OF THEOLOGY, [Baker, Grand Rapids, 1960], 19.
[4]  J. Dwight Pentecost, THE PARABLES OF JESUS, [Zondervan, Grand Rapids, 1982], 112.
[5]  Ibid, 113. 

2 comments:

  1. Jim, just wondering. If Abraham's bosom is not in Sheol, (a) where is/was it? and (b) how does that jive with the numerous OT references to godly persons going to Sheol upon death (e.g, Genesis 37:35)?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the question. It is a good one. I know that two compartments is a popular teaching. May I simply point out the following that indicates where I am coming from:
    1. Sheol in the great majority of cases in the OT simply signifies the grave. See Ungers Bible Dictionary (p. 1178) which states that “it can have no other meaning in Gen. 37:35; 42:38; 1 Sam. 2:6; 1 Kings 2:6; Job 14:13, 17:13 16 and in many passages in the writings of David, Solomon, and the prophets.” Grave is clearly the main meaning of the word. Believers and unbelievers alike go to the grave. All souls do not go to the same place to one place, but all people go to the grave.
    2. In other places it is the place of darkness and gloom. It seems to me in such cases it is always spoken of in the terms of torment (Deut. 32:22; Isa. 14:19; Ps. 116:3). That is the reason it is mostly translated Hell in the Old Testament (KJV). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says, “It can be held that originally the word meant just ‘the grave’ and became specialized for ‘hell.’” (2:892). I do not find a place where sheol (that is beyond the meaning of the grave) is ever spoken of as a place of blessedness.
    3. Then you have the fugitive sense as in Jonah 2:2.
    4. Abraham’s bosom is never used in the Old Testament as far as I can see.
    When we come to Luke 16 let me state the following:
    1. This is the first place that identifies the place were Old Testament saints go after death, which is beyond the grave. It must be remembered that the Gospels cover Old Testament ground. The New Testament could not have started before the death and resurrection of Christ.
    2. The parable points to two different locations for believers and unbelievers. It does so by name (Hades / Abraham’s bosom) and by location as indicated by the term “far away.” While many see these as two compartments of Sheol, I disagree. The are two separate locations. It seems to me that the whole context indicates separated locations. Not one location with two compartments. If I live in Arizona, and someone else lives in Mexico, and I am close to border and can see and even yell to the person in Mexico, are we in the same compartment, or even in the same state? Are we not in two separate locations? We are separated by a border, location, and name. Is not the rich man and Lazarus separated by a border (a great gulf), location, and name of the location? My personal view is that the Rich man and Lazarus are not in two different compartments sheol, but two separate locations.
    That is why I agree with Woudstra’s statement the Dictionary of Theology

    ReplyDelete