The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rick Man http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.

htm

The Real Meaning of

Lazarus and the Rich Man
Expanded Internet Edition - Posted May 29, 2003
By Ernest L. Martin, Ph. D., 1984

Edited by David Sielaff, June 2003

This section of Scripture has been more misunderstood by students of

the Bible than many other parts of the divine revelation. There is a
definite reason for it! It is the assumption that Christ is relating a story
of literal occurrences, rather than an account rehearsed in parable
form. The truth is, however, the narrative is a parable from beginning
to end. Once this important point is understood, the meaning becomes
clear and significant.

A sure and quick way to inflame the wrath of some preachers and
Christian laity is to say the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a
parable. They will not have it! The mere suggestion that the account is
symbolic is enough to bring on the charge of "theological liberalism."
To many people today the normal bedrock of teaching concerning
Christ’s judgment upon sinners rests with the literality of this story.
And one must admit, it shows a judgment of severest consequences!
It seems to state, in vivid and graphic detail, the condition of wicked
sinners after death. They appear to be conscious, in extreme torment,
engulfed in flames that will never be extinguished and that they will
remain in such excruciating pain for all eternity. And true enough, if
the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man is not a parable of
thoroughly symbolic meaning, this would be their fate!

Such a scene is so horrendous to imagine that it is no wonder vast

numbers of fearful people walk down the aisle to accept Christ after
hearing a sermon on the literality of the story. It never seems to occur
to such preachers that this consignment by Christ to a never-ending
judgment for sins committed in this short life, makes Him to be the
most unjust and unreasonable person in the universe. Simply because
someone in China or the Soviet Union (to pick two atheistic countries)
never had a chance to hear of Jesus Christ and His redemptive
message, and confine him to a never-ending HELL is beyond belief for
a merciful and loving God who sent His only begotten son to save and
redeem this world (John 3:16). However, this interpretation is part of
the exact scenario being preached in many churches and revivals
today. And let’s face it, that is precisely what ought to be taught if
Lazarus and the rich man is a literal narrative.

Thankfully, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the whole account
is a parable from start to finish. What many people conveniently fail to
realize is the proclivity of teachers, speaking in early Semitic
languages like Hebrew (or even in Greek when speaking in a Semitic
environment), to constantly use the symbolic or parable form of

1 of 8 01/05/2010 02:09
The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rick Man http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.htm

teaching to the people they taught. Christ was no exception!

"All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitudes IN PARABLES and
without a parable spoke he not unto them. That it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ‘I will open my mouth in
parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the
foundation of the world.’" Matthew 13:34–35

Parables are a form of storytelling in which the physical features of

some well-known subjects are exemplified to relate an essential
spiritual teaching. On many occasions the incidents are greatly
exaggerated to heighten the teaching. One famous example is that of
Christ when he said the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds
(when everyone knew it was not) and it becomes the greatest of trees
(which again was not literally true). See Matthew 13:32. No one in the
first century would have thought that Christ was stretching the facts.
Of course he was! But it was a simple form of teaching that all people
were using in that time. 1

Since we are told dogmatically that Christ was always in the habit of
speaking to the people in parables (as a common mode of instruction
in the Semitic world of the first century), why do people today insist on
the literality of symbolic language, while people in Christ’s day
normally did not? Note one thing that the apostle Paul said which has
to do with the fire of judgment, yet no one in ancient times (or even
today) takes literally. Paul said: "If your enemy hunger, feed him; if he
thirst, give him drink: for in so doing you shall heap COALS OF FIRE
on his head" (Rom.12:20, from Proverbs 25:22). This mention of the
fires of judgment on a person was only intended in a figurative sense.
It shows that a person’s conscience would be "singed." No literal fire
was meant!

And so it is with the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man! No one with
common sense could possibly believe that Christ was giving literal
teaching. The whole thing is figurative from start to finish, and anyone
who says differently should examine the matter closer.

Let us now look at the subject carefully. In no way should a person

believe that literal acts were being discussed by Christ. Practically
every detail of the story has a symbolic meaning to it, and this can be
shown so clearly. When a person adopts an erroneous literality to the
account, the message that Christ was trying to convey is destroyed
and its true symbolic meaning is tarnished!

A Parable Throughout

The first thing to notice is the fact that Lazarus ate of the crumbs that
fell from the Rich Man’s table. Now, are the crumbs literal or symbolic?
If literal, then tell me how Lazarus would have had enough to eat? A
few measly crumbs could hardly feed any grown man. Obviously,
Christ meant that the man ate the scraps (intended for dogs or other
animals). However, the literalists would demand real crumbs so they
can get the Rich Man into a real burning hell!

Then it says that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into the
bosom of Abraham. Where was Abraham’s bosom? Some people say

2 of 8 01/05/2010 02:09
The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rick Man http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.htm

it signifies the heavenly abode, heaven. In fact, the bosom of Abraham

actually means the breast part of his body. Can they get Lazarus and
ten million other redeemed Christians in that one bosom of Abraham?
There would not be any room to breathe, let alone stretch ones arms.
All people, however, rightly recognize that Christ is here giving a
symbol. True! That is just the point that we wish to make! If one part is
figurative, all can be!

We then find that Abraham is able to carry on a conversation with the

Rich Man and that Lazarus could be seen with Abraham, though the
text says that Abraham was "afar off." How were they able to talk with
one another? If Abraham and Lazarus were in heaven (as many
preachers claim today), it shows that the redeemed would still be in
constant contact with the rebellious sinners in hell and that the
redeemed would be seeing their tortured and agonized faces as they
writhed in unrelenting pain. Indeed, they are close enough to be in
conversation with them! Can you imagine the joy and happiness the
saints would have while viewing the agony of all the wicked in hell for
all eternity? But if this story of Christ were to be taken literally, that
would be the outcome. What glory would it be to see your
unredeemed father, your unconverted mother, sister, brother, son,
daughter, wife or husband having to experience the rigors of an
eternally burning hell without any relief ever in sight, while you bask in
the sunshine and happiness of Abraham’s bosom? And remember
Abraham was close enough to carry on a conversation with the Rich
Man. And the Rich Man was close enough to Lazarus to recognize
him.

Another thing that is highly irregular of our experience is the fact that
the Rich Man was able to speak at all. Would he not more likely be
screaming his head off at the terrible excruciating pain that he was
being subjected to? Again, if the account is literal, we find a most
impossible situation in the story. Even more than that, what does the
Rich Man seek from Lazarus? It is not to drag him out of the fire, but
simply to take a drop of cold water and put on his tongue. Why, the
Rich Man ought to know that such a thing would not relieve his pain in
the slightest! How can a drop of physical water give benefit to a spirit
being (as the Rich Man would be)? The water, if literal, would turn into
steam before it could do any good. And why did not the man ask
Abraham to bring the drop of water to his tongue to cool it? Abraham
was far closer to the Rich Man, or at least it looks this way because
there was no conversation with Lazarus. What was so special about
Lazarus that his drop of water would cool his tongue, but Abraham
was not asked for any help?

The point is, the whole scene (though instructive and significant in
what our Lord was trying to teach) is impossible to explain sensibly if
Christ was teaching fact. However, make it a parable (as it truly is,
remembering that Christ would not teach without a parable), then the
message becomes beautiful and understandable. Again, everyone
knows Paul did not mean literal "coals of fire on one’s head" in
Romans 12:20.

The True Story in Detail

3 of 8 01/05/2010 02:09
The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rick Man http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.htm

The story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable (Matthew 13:34).
Once this is recognized the interpretation behind the narrative can
become quite meaningful. It is also very important to note the context
in which the parable is found. There was a reason why Christ spoke
this parable at that time. Christ had just given His teaching about the
unjust steward who had mishandled his master’s money (Luke
16:1–13). This parable was told to further illustrate what proper
stewardship is.

Let us first consider the identification of Lazarus. This is the only time
in Christ’s parables that a person’s name is used. Some have
imagined that this use of a personal name precludes the story being a
parable. But this is hardly true. The name "Lazarus" is a transliteration
of the Hebrew "Eleazar" (which means "God has helped"). The name
was a common Hebrew word used for eleven different persons in the
Old Testament.

When one analyzes the parable, this Eleazar can be identified. He

was one who must have had some kind of affinity with Abraham (or the
Abrahamic covenant), for the parable places him in Abraham’s bosom
after death. But he was probably a Gentile. The phrase "desiring to be
fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table" was typical of
Gentile identification (see Matthew 15:22–28). Even the phrase "laid at
his gate" is reminiscent of the normal one used by Jews to denote the
Gentile proselyte "Proselyte of the Gate." This Eleazar must also have
been associated with stewardship because Christ gave the parable
precisely for the reason of explaining what represents the true
steward.

There was only one Eleazar in the historical part of the Bible that fits
the description. He was a person associated with Abraham, he was a
Gentile (not an ethnic part of the Abrahamic family), and a steward. He
was Eleazar of Damascus, the chief steward of Abraham.

"And Abram said, ‘Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go
childless, and the steward of my house is this Eleazar [Lazarus] of
Damascus and lo, one born in my house is mine heir.’" Genesis
15:2–3

Long ago it was suggested that the Lazarus of the parable

represented the Eleazar associated with Abraham (Geiger, JuJ
Zejtschr., 1868, p. 196 sq.), but for some reason very few modern
commentators have taken up the identification. But once this simple
connection is made, a flood of light emerges on the scene which can
interpret the parable with real meaning.

The Lazarus of the parable represented Abraham’s faithful steward

Eleazar. And faithful he was! Though he had been the legal heir to
receive all of Abraham’s possessions (Genesis 15:3), Abraham gave
him an assignment which was to result in his own disinheritance. But
the Bible shows he carried out the orders of Abraham in a precise (and
faithful) way.

"And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house [Eleazar], that
ruled over all that he had, ‘Put, I pray thee, your hand under my thigh:

4 of 8 01/05/2010 02:09
The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rick Man http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.htm

and I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the
God of the earth, that you shall not take a wife unto my son [Isaac] of
the daughters of the Canaanites.’"Genesis 24:2–3

Eleazar agreed to do what Abraham desired, although the fulfillment

of his task meant the complete abandonment of Eleazar’s claim to any
of Abraham’s inheritance—both present and future! Each step that
Eleazar took northward to procure a wife for Isaac was a step towards
his own disqualification. Eleazar recognized this, for he admitted to
Laban, Rebecca’s brother, that "unto him [Isaac] hath he [Abraham]
given all that he hath" (Genesis 24:36). There was nothing left for him!
Thus, Eleazar’s faithfulness to Abraham resulted in his own
disinheritance from all the promises of blessing which God had given
to Abraham. They were now given to Isaac and his future family. That
inheritance included wealth, prestige, power, kingship, priesthood,
and the land of Canaan as an "everlasting" possession. But now
Eleazar was "cast out." He and his seed would inherit nothing. Thus,
the parable calls Lazarus a "beggar" who possessed nothing of
earthly worth.

Who Was the Rich Man?

The Rich Man was an actual son of Abraham. Christ had him calling
Abraham his "father" (Luke 16:24) and Abraham acknowledged him as
"son" (verse 25). Such sonship made the Rich Man a legal possessor
of Abraham’s inheritance. Indeed, the Rich Man had all the physical
blessings promised to Abraham’s seed. He wore purple, the symbol of
kingship, a sign that the Davidic or Messianic Kingdom was his. He
wore linen, the symbol of priesthood, showing that God’s ordained
priests and the Temple were his. Who was this Rich Man who
possessed these blessings while living on the earth?

The Israelite tribe that finally assumed possession of both the kingdom
and priesthood, and the tribe which became the representative one of
all the promises given to Abraham, was Judah. There can not be the
slightest doubt of this when the whole parable is analyzed. Remember
that Judah had "five brothers." The Rich Man also had the same
(verse 28).

"The sons of Leah; [1] Reuben; Jacob’s firstborn, and [2] Simeon, and
[3] Levi, and Judah, and [4] Issachar, and [5] Zebulun." Genesis 35:23

"And Leah said ... ‘now will my husband be pleased to dwell with me;
for I have born him six sons.’" Genesis 30:20

Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the
five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the
prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of
God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given
the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and
physical), Christ was showing that he had been unfaithful with his
responsibilities. When the true inheritance was to be given, Judah was
in "hades" and "in torment" while Lazarus (Eleazar, the faithful
steward) was now in Abraham’s bosom. He was finally received into
the "everlasting habitations" (verse 9).

5 of 8 01/05/2010 02:09
The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rick Man http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.htm

"A Great Gulf Fixed"

The parable says that a "great gulf" [Greek: chasm] was fixed between
the position of Abraham and Eleazar and that of the Rich Man [Judah].
What was this chasm? The Greek word means a deep ravine or valley
— a great canyon with cliffs on each side. Its two sides were also "afar
off" from each other (verse 23). It was "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" (verse 26). Note the italicized word
"pass." In all other occasions of its grammatical use in the New
Testament, the word was used to denote a passage over water. And in
Greek imagery of the abodes of the dead, there was usually some
kind of water barrier between the righteous dead and the wicked —
either a river or ocean. This is also represented in Jewish conceptions
of the compartments for the dead — "by a chasm, by water, and by
light above it" (Enoch, ch. 22).

It was also common for many chasms (those described in Greek

literature) to have water in their regions of deepest declivity. Let us
now look at such a chasm from a Palestinian point of view. In that
environment there is only one possible identification for the "great gulf"
of the parable if it is to fit the meaning of the Greek chasm precisely.
This would be the great rift valley between the highlands of Trans-
Jordan and the hill country of Ephraim in which the River Jordan
flows. This fault line is the greatest and longest visible chasm on
earth. And what a spectacular sight it is! As one looks over the chasm
he sees impressive cliffs on each side, a desert in its wastelands, and
the River Jordan meandering in the center.

Identifying the chasm of the parable with the Jordan rift unfolds a
beautiful symbolic story well recognized in contemporary Jewish
allegorical narratives of the time. In the center of this "gulf" was the
River Jordan. It divided the original land of promise given to Abraham
from ordinary Gentile lands. The west side of Jordan represented the
area that the Bible considered the original Holyland. As the angel said
to Joshua: "Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon
stand is holy. And Joshua did so" (Joshua 5:15). When the Israelites
finally entered the chasm of the Jordan and crossed the river, they
then considered themselves in the Holyland the land promised to
Abraham and his seed!

Entering the land of Canaan (west of Jordan) was also a symbol of

final spiritual salvation. The author of Hebrews recognized that Israel’s
crossing of the River Jordan under Joshua (and the taking of the land
of Canaan) was typical of Christians obtaining their true "rest" in the
future Kingdom of God (Hebrews 3:1–4:11). Even American Negro
spirituals with which so many of us are familiar ("crossing into
Canaan’s land") are reflective of this early symbolic theme.

Recall also that the Rich Man was depicted as being in flames of
judgment (verse 24). In this same rift valley were formerly located the
cities of Sodom and Gomorrah which were "set forth for an example
suffering the vengeance of eternal fire" (Jude 7).

"Turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned

6 of 8 01/05/2010 02:09
The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rick Man http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.htm

them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those who

should after live ungodly." 2 Peter 2:6

When the allegorical applications are understood, the teaching of the

parable becomes simple and instructive. The theme of Christ’s
narrative was true stewardship. Though Eleazar [Lazarus], Abraham’s
trusted steward, had disinherited himself from earthly rewards by his
faithful obedience to Abraham’s wishes, he was later to find himself
(after death, when true inheritance comes) in Abraham’s bosom. But
the chief representative of Abraham’s actual sons (Judah, the spiritual
leader of all the Israelite tribes) remained East of Canaan as far as
true inheritance was concerned. He had inherited all the physical
blessings while in the flesh, but at death he was not allowed to pass
the spiritual Jordan into the final Abrahamic inheritance.

Like Moses, because of rebellion, he was not allowed to pass the

"great gulf" to enjoy the land of milk and honey. True enough, Judah
had been blessed with the kingship, priesthood, the divine scriptures,
the prophets, and other untold blessings, but he was not allowed to
enjoy the true spiritual blessings of the future because he was
unfaithful with his sonship and was refusing the true message of
salvation offered by God’s own Son. Christ said: "Neither will they he
persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

The Final Appraisal

The only Gospel to carry the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man was
Luke who was the companion of Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles. It
showed a specific message that Gentiles could now inherit the
promises to Abraham provided they were faithful as Eleazar had been.
Yet Paul did not want the Gentiles to be conceited in their new
relationship with God.

"What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeks for ... God
hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see,
ears that they should not hear; unto this day." Romans 11:8

But "Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid" (verse 11).
"Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing
of them the riches of the Gentiles [like Lazarus-Eleazar]; how much
more their fullness" (verse 12).

One of these days, according to Paul, "all Israel shall be saved" (verse
26). God will show mercy on the natural sons of Abraham as He has
on faithful Gentile stewards. This shows that the hades, the purple,
the linen, the torment, Abraham’s bosom, the great gulf, and even the
persons of Lazarus and the Rich Man were all symbolic and not literal.
After all, the narrative was a parable.

Summary of the Symbols

1. The Lazarus of the parable was Eleazar, Abraham’s steward

(Genesis 15:2).
2. He was a Gentile "of Damascus" ("a proselyte of the gate") who "ate
the crumbs."
3. He was disinherited (to become a beggar) but he remained faithful

7 of 8 01/05/2010 02:09
The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rick Man http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellArticles/RichManParable.htm

to Abraham and God.

4. When this earthly life was over, he received Abraham’s inheritance
after all (he was in Abraham’s bosom) — in "everlasting habitations."
5. The Rich Man of the Parable was Judah. This son of Jacob had five
literal brothers as did the Rich Man.
6. He was also a literal son of Abraham, while Eleazar (Lazarus) was
not!
7. The Rich Man (Judah) also had the kingship (purple) and the
priesthood (linen).
8. Yet Judah (representing God on this earth) was not the true
steward of the Abrahamic blessings.
9. Though he and his literal brothers had been graced with the
"oracles of God" (the Old Testament) they would not respond to the
One resurrected from the dead (Christ).
10. The "great gulf" was the Jordan rift valley the dividing line between
Gentile lands and the Holyland of promise (Abraham’s inheritance).
Crossing the Jordan was a typical figure recognized by the Jews as a
symbol of salvation.

Once these factors are recognized, all the points in the parable (with
its context) fit perfectly to give us some simple but profound teachings
of Christ. It shows that the physical promises of God (though
excellent) are very inferior to the spiritual redemption that anyone (Jew
or Gentile) can have in Christ.

Introduction | Actual Photos of Hell | Burning questions: What the hell is

Hell?
Who the devil is Satan? | What about evil? | Books on Hell | Articles on Hell
Hell's Encyclopedia | Scholar's Corner | Exploring Hell (SEARCH)
Hell Raiser's Links | Hell's Poetry | Dispelling the Darkness

Tentmaker Resources: Our Online Store

Match term in Search Index:

Search this
site:
Sitemap

Site Credits

E-mail Us

8 of 8 01/05/2010 02:09