In Luke 16:19-31, Jesus tells the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man and their respective fates in the afterlife.
This parable is unique in that it is the only one of Jesus’ parables that involves a named figure–Lazarus. (It also mentions Abraham by name, but he can be seen as belonging to a different category as an archtypical figure from Israel’s history).
It’s also striking that, in the course of the parable, it is proposed that Lazarus come back from the dead, which the historical Lazarus actually did (John 11).
Further, Luke knows the Bethany family to which Lazarus belonged, as he mentions Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42).
All of these factors have led some to question the extent to which this story even is a parable–as opposed to a straightforward account of what happened to Lazarus in the afterlife.
Is It a Parable?
I think it’s possible that the narrative is in some way based on the experience of the historical Lazarus, though it is probably in some degree a parable.
First, we don’t have an indication that the historical Lazarus was a beggar, especially not the kind described in the parable. Instead, we have him living with his two sisters, and they apparently had considerable financial resources, since John identifies Lazarus’s sister Mary as the woman who broke the bottle of (very!) costly ointment over Jesus’ head (John 12:1-3).
Second, in the parable, the proposal that Lazarus be sent back from the dead is seemingly refused (Luke 16:27-31), which is the opposite of what happened to the historical Lazarus.
However that may be, Jesus told this for a purpose, and it wasn’t simply to tell us about a particular incident. He was making a larger point.
A Common Mistake
One of the dangers modern interpreters can fall into is pressing the details of a biblical passage into telling us things they aren’t meant to–like when geocentrists take references to the sun rising as if they were meant to be lessons about the physical structure of the cosmos and the absolute (rather than relative) motion of objects within it.
Something similar can happen with symbolic texts, as when people see stars falling from the sky in prophetic passages and think “meteor shower.”
One of the best checks on the tendency to inappropriately press the details in a passage is to stop and ask what the biblical author is trying to tell us–what’s his overall point?
Is the biblical author trying to tell us that the sun moves rather than the earth? Is he trying to tell us about a meteor shower, as opposed to something else (the fall of angels? the fall of princes?)?
The Point(s) of Parables
This test also applies to parables. One needs to take a step back from the detail of the text and ask, “What is the fundamental point that Jesus is making here?”
There may be more than one point, and these can be identified by looking at the different characters in the parable. In the parable of the Prodigal Son, for example, there are different points made with the prodigal son, his older brother, and his father.
In this parable, there are different points being made with Lazarus and the rich man, with Abraham representing as an arbiter who serves as the voice of God’s will (just as the father expresses God’s attitude in the Prodigal Son).
Hell or Purgatory?
Interpreters down through the ages have understood that, in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man, Jesus is contrasting the two fundamental fates that await us in the afterlife: salvation and damnation.
On this interpretation, Lazarus is saved, while the rich man is damned.
However, some in recent times have proposed that the rich man isn’t actually in hell but in purgatory.
The basis for this proposal is the fact that the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus back from the grave to warn his brothers of the fate that awaits them (Luke 16:27, 30).
Is that the action of a damned soul? Isn’t he showing love for his brothers by wanting to save them from his fate, and would such love be inconsistent with a truly damned soul? If so, wouldn’t that point to him being in purgatory rather than hell?
Pressing This Detail
If we assume that this detail of the parable can be reliably pressed, the answer is no.
What hell excludes is the supernatural love of God (i.e., the virtue of charity, as described in 1 Cor. 13). It does not exclude natural affections that people may have for things.
Even a damned soul may still like ice cream–or, as in the case of the rich man in this parable, a drop of cool water for his tongue (Luke 16:24).
In the same way, a damned soul might still have natural affection for his brothers and want to see them not suffer.
Some have even proposed that the rich man could have a selfish motive for his request concerning them–e.g., it would increase his shame for them to follow his bad example or otherwise increase his suffering to see fellow family members damned.
Even granting that this detail of the parable is meant to be pressed yields a negative answer: The rich man does not need to be in purgatory rather than hell to account for how the parable is written.
But should we be pressing this detail in the first place?
There is reason to think that we should not.
Pressing Another Detail
For example, look at another detail of the parable: Why Abraham can’t send Lazarus to put a drop of cool water on the rich man’s tongue. Abraham explains:
Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us (Luke 16:25-26).
Abraham’s appeal is thus twofold: (1) the rich man is experiencing what he deserves under divine justice (since he cared only for himself in life and ignored the suffering beggar outside his own door), and (2) there has been a chasm fixed to prevent anyone from relieving the sufferings of people like him.
Even if we understand the chasm not as a physical valley in the afterlife but as a symbol of inability, we have good reason not to press this detail in a literal way.
If we did so, it would mean that there would be people in heaven who–knowing that God’s justice is being done to people like the rich man–would nevertheless want to thwart this justice and are only restrained from doing so because God has set a (spiritual) barrier between them.
That’s problematic because the souls of the righteous would not want to thwart divine justice!
It’s also problematic because, if the rich man were only in purgatory, then the saints could and would help his sufferings by interceding for him.
It’s more natural not to press this detail and see Abraham as saying, (1) justice is being done and (2) one’s fate is fixed (not that any of the righteous would literally want to undo divine justice).
Asking the Purpose
If that detail of the parable shouldn’t be pressed, it raises questions about how far the rich man’s request regarding his brothers should be.
Is Jesus really trying to tell us that the damned intercede on behalf of their living relatives or is he making another point?
The damned might or might not literally intercede for those still living, but it’s easy to show that Jesus is making a different point. In fact, he’s making several, as revealed by Abraham’s responses to the rich man’s requests.
When the rich man first proposes sending Lazarus back, Abraham replies:
They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them (Luke 16:29).
This is the first point: The living already have a revelation of God’s will in the form of Moses and the prophets. They should listen to the message they already have.
When the rich man makes the proposal again, saying that if someone comes back from the dead then his brothers will repent, Abraham says:
If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead (Luke 16:31).
This is the second point: Being willing to repent is based on a fundamental readiness to do God’s will, as expressed in Moses and the prophets. If one has a heart too hard to do that, even someone returning from the dead won’t change it.
Of course, in an individual case, it might. If you knew for a fact that someone was back from the dead with a message that you need to repent, it might well prompt you to alter your behavior!
But this isn’t about an individual case. It’s about the fact that Jesus’ own resurrection will not automatically produce repentance.
At this point in Luke’s narrative, Jesus has already “set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51), and he has already predicted his death and resurrection more than once and will soon do so again (Luke 9:21-22, 9:43-45; cf. 18:31-34).
The real point that is being made with the figure of Abraham is that if people in Israel don’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they won’t be convinced by Jesus’ resurrection, either.
That’s the point Jesus is making.
And so that’s why the parable depicts the rich man as asking for Lazarus to be sent back from the dead: It’s to set up the points that Abraham makes in reply.
This doesn’t mean that people in the rich man’s condition never intercede for those they cared for in life, but since the purpose of the request is to set up a different set of points, it means we can’t press the request as if it’s determinative of the meaning of the text.
Instead, we need to look at the big picture to see what can safely be gotten from the text.
The Big Picture
So what’s Jesus’ fundamental point in telling this parable?
The most obvious interpretation is that there are two destinies awaiting people in the afterlife–a good one (experienced by Lazarus) and a bad one (experienced by the rich man).
Further, you had better make your decision in this life, because these two destinies are immutable, as illustrated by the chasm between them. Once you’re in the suffering condition, there is no relief.
And, don’t expect people in Israel to be convinced by the resurrection of Jesus. If they can find ways to ignore the message of Moses and the prophets (which predict Jesus), they can find ways to ignore the implications of Jesus’ resurrection as well.
These points–which see the rich man as being in hell–make much better sense of the text than the idea that Jesus is ignoring the possibility of someone going to hell and instead warning us about the temporary state of purgatory, which for some reason the righteous are powerless to assist with.
That’s not to say that more isn’t going on with this parable. The factors that echo (and don’t echo) what we know about the historical Lazarus make it very intriguing.
But pressing the details in a way that would put the rich man in purgatory rather than hell isn’t reliable.
