The Rich Man and Lazarus

THE Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is one that is used very widely by certain nominal church groups in their efforts to prove that eternal torture is the punishment for sin, rather than death, as so clearly stated by the Apostle Paul. (Rom. 6:23) In this parable Jesus tells of a “certain rich man” who was clothed in purple and fine linen, and who fared sumptuously every day.

There was also a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who was laid at the gate of the rich man. This beggar was full of sores. The beggar desired to be fed, and was quite willing to eat the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. In the parable, dogs were present which licked the sores of the beggar.

In the course of time the rich man and the beggar both died. When the beggar died he was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. When the rich man died he was buried, and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torment. He saw Abraham afar off, with Lazarus in his bosom, and he said, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.”—vs. 24

Abraham did not grant this favor, but simply reminded the rich man of his former favorable position, and the once unfavorable lot of the beggar. He explained also that there was a great gulf fixed between them and the rich man, making it impossible for communication between them.

The rich man then stated that he had five brethren, and asked that they be warned against the same course he had taken, and, like himself, later find themselves in tormenting flames. In reply to this it was explained that these five brethren, like the rich man himself, had Moses and the prophets as their instructors, and that if they had not been sufficiently warned by them, nothing more could be done about it, even though one should rise from the dead.

Is It a Parable?

PROPONENTS of the eternal torture theory insist that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable at all, but a statement of fact. They call attention to the fact that Jesus did not refer to it as a parable; and also refer to the statement, “a certain rich man,” which, they claim, denotes that Jesus was telling a story of a man who actually lived and who, when he died, found himself being tormented in a literal hell of fire.

This story of the rich man, it is claimed by the eternal torture proponents, teaches that wicked, unconverted sinners go to a place of torture when they die, and that righteous believers in Christ go to heaven. But since the story, by their own claim, is a literal statement, it does not prove these points at all. In the first place, nothing is said about the rich man being an unbeliever, or a sinner. It simply states that he was rich, fared sumptuously every day, and that he was well fed. Nor does the story inform us that the beggar was righteous, and a believer in Christ. He was simply a poor beggar. Nor does the story say that the beggar went to heaven when he died. It does say that he was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom.

So far as we know, there is no group of professed Christians in the world who believe that the righteous are carried to Abraham’s bosom by the angels when they die. According to the professed beliefs of all groups who teach the eternal torture theory, that part of the story is not a statement of fact. It must, therefore, be a parable. So far as we are aware there are no groups which believe that Abraham can be addressed by those suffering in the flames of eternal torture, and that he is able to talk back to them, as occurs in this story. This also must be parabolic in nature.

There are other details of the story which would be equally absurd should we consider them to be literal statements. The whole account is manifestly a parable, even though, as in the case of a number of other parables, Jesus did not so designate it. Considering it as a parable, what is the lesson which it teaches? This is one of Jesus’ parables which he did not explain, so we should not be too dogmatic as to its meaning, although there are certain statements in the parable itself which serve as clues as to what it seems to teach.

One of these statements is found near the close of the parable. When the rich man asks Abraham to testify to his five brethren concerning the situation, Abraham’s reply was, “They have Moses and the prophets.” Here, then, we have a family of six brothers who had Moses and the prophets as their teachers. The Scriptures are explicit on the fact that the only ones, up to Jesus’ first advent, who had Moses and the prophets as their teachers were those of the nation of Israel. “You only have I known of all the families of the earth,” God said to them through the prophet Amos. (Amos 3:2). In this same verse the Lord explains that because of this he would punish them for all their iniquities.

Yes, the Israelites, as a nation, were God’s chosen people, and his means of communicating with them was through the Law and the prophets. With this clue to guide us, we think it is reasonable to assume that the rich man of the parable would represent this nation as it existed in Palestine at the time of our Lord’s first advent. We have examples of this use of symbolism even today. For example, we have “Uncle Sam” representing America, and “John Bull” representing Great Britain. Any calamities or adversities mentioned as coming upon these would readily be understood as coming upon the United States and Great Britain.

Let us notice the characteristics of the rich man in the parable: He fared sumptuously every day, we are told. The nation of Israel did fare sumptuously every day, as the parable states; that is, their table was laden with the good symbolic food furnished by the Law and through the prophets. Paul wrote that they had much advantage every way over the Gentiles in that to them was given the oracles of God.—Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12

The rich man was arrayed in a purple robe. Purple is a symbol of royalty, and Israel had the promise of becoming a royal nation under God, the messianic nation, through which, under the Messiah, all the families of the earth would be blessed. (Exod. 19:5,6) The white linen worn by the rich man would be a symbol of righteousness, that measure of typical righteousness enjoyed by the Israelites under the Law. (Rev. 19:8) This gave them a standing before God which other nations did not enjoy.

But as a nation Israel died, and lost all these rich blessings which the Lord had provided. However, the individuals comprising this nation continued to live, and because of the loss of God’s exclusive favor as a royal nation, each generation of these throughout the centuries has continued to suffer. They have suffered because of being members of a nation that died.

There is a prophecy in which the Lord, using highly symbolic language, forecast the punishment which he would visit upon the Israelites because of their iniquities. The Lord said, “A fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell [Hebrew, sheol, the equivalent of the Greek word hades, translated “hell” in the parable under consideration], and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.”—Deut. 32:22

As noted, this is highly symbolic language, but it denotes the use of fire, and speaks of sheol—hades in the New Testament—in association with punishments which the Lord warned that he would visit upon his people. The nation has indeed been in hades throughout the Gospel Age, and as a nation has been dead. But as individuals, it has been different. These have almost continuously been persecuted, which, in the parable, is symbolized by the flames which engulf the rich man.

The Beggar

THE beggar, we think, also symbolizes a group, not just one nation, but all non-Israelitish nations. So far as the promises and blessings of God were concerned these were, prior to the first advent of Jesus, a poverty-stricken people. The Israelites themselves often referred to them as dogs. We think of the Syrophenician woman who asked Jesus for a blessing, and he asked her if she thought it was proper to take the children’s bread and give it to the dogs. To this she replied that dogs are quite willing to eat the crumbs which fall from the children’s table.—Mark 7:25-30

We mention this incident as an illustration of the wide distinction between the view of the Israelites at that time and the position of the Gentiles. But a change was due. Beginning shortly after Pentecost, God visited the Gentiles; that is, through the proclamation of the Gospel to them they were given an opportunity to enter into his favor, and to rejoice in the hope held out in his promises to the faithful followers of Jesus.

This change of position is represented in the parable by the beggar being carried into Abraham’s bosom; that is, the believers among them were given the opportunity to embrace the faith of Abraham; the faith that through his seed all the families of the earth were to be blessed. (Gal. 3:8,16,27-29) This does not mean that all Gentiles have embraced the messianic hope, the Gospel of Christ which was first preached to Abraham. (Gal. 3:7-9) It simply means that there has been no discrimination against them as there was when Jesus said to his apostles, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”—Matt. 10:5,6

The Five Brethren

THE rich man in the parable mentioned having five brethren to whom he wanted a message sent concerning the result of his unfaithfulness. Who could these be? There were twelve tribes of Israel. In Palestine at the time of our Lord’s first advent the great majority were of the former two-tribe kingdom of Judah and Benjamin. There were some of the other tribes there, but the majority were scattered here and there in various countries, and did not have the same opportunity to hear the testimony of Jesus. Since one man represented chiefly the two tribes then in Palestine, we think it reasonable that his five brethren would symbolize, on the same basis of one for two, those of the other ten tribes.

And in this connection the statement in the parable accredited to “Abraham” is significant. He said that these others would not believe even though one should rise from the dead. And how true this has been! Indeed, the doctrine of the resurrection of Jesus has been one of the additional stumbling stones to the unbelieving Israelites. The opposition of the Israelites in Palestine, and outside, to the teaching that Jesus was raised from the dead led to much persecution of Paul and others at the beginning of the age.

The parable states that a gulf had been fixed between the symbolic rich man, and the beggar; that is, the believing Gentiles. This has also been true. It has been impossible to bridge this gulf, although at times the suffering Israelites have appealed to Gentile believers to do something that might ease their sufferings, as symbolized by the drop of water for which the rich man asked.

Thus viewed, the parable does lend itself to a reasonable interpretation. As in all parables, every detail does not fit the facts perfectly, but the general picture is there. A nation that was rich toward God died to that favored position, and, as a people, have suffered. Those considered by that nation as cast off from God and his blessings were given, as individuals, the opportunity to accept the Gospel as embodied in the oathbound covenant with Abraham; and God has blessed all who have entered into their privileges along this line.

| Home Page | Table of Contents |