Principles from the Parable of the Rich Man & Lazerus

Codex Aureus of Echternach

“The poor man [Lazerus] died and was carried by the angels to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.” (Luke 16:22-23)  

While the story of Lazerus and the rich man is a parable, that doesn't negate the Truth elements depicted in it.  Jesus is never known to  fabricate or repeat myths even in his parabolic storytelling.  Thus, even if the events described didn't happen historically (though Lazerus is the only named character in a parable), the 

---

1. Riches are not a sign of God's favor. Jesus told this story (it is never named as a parable) in response to the Pharisees' sneers to Jesus' teachings on money. Instead of their prosperity theology that taught that God rewarded those who followed Him monetarily, Jesus retells a Jewish legend (“in which a husband repents after his wife sent him a warning from the underworld” (Marshall, 634)) in which a rich man goes to hell where his requests for a warning be sent to his brothers is denied! While some claim that “verses 19-26 teach that there will be a reversal of fortune after death (Elwell, 828), it seems more likely that Jesus is stating that “death prove[s] to be the great equalizer” (Howell, 244), and riches are clearly not an indicator of God's favor. Instead Jesus reveals the danger of riches since “poverty often nurtures dependence...” on God, “...while wealth produces self-satisfaction” (Howell, 244). In the end, it all depends on our relationship with the Father, which riches can be a distraction.
   
   
2. Theological beliefs line up with personal desire. The mind abhors cognitive dissonance and will remedy a gap in life choices and moral standards by modifying the way they it thinks about theological Truths. Thus, instead of letting the bible be the ultimate standard on Truth, people crown themselves as the arbiters of what is moral, but in so doing, they actually make their fleshly appetites and desires as the final judge of what is right and wrong. The rich man in his love of money justified his possession of it and condemned Lazarus' absence of it as blessing and judgment from God respectively, even though such a view conflicts with the teachings of the law. In the end, “the rich man indulged his wealth with no concern for the poor,” (Howell, 244) even though he had the testimony of scripture to tell him otherwise (Luke 16:29).
   
   
3. Hell exists at the end of a one-way street. Contrary to popular thought today that hell is a figment of the church equivalent to the boogeyman in order scare people, Jesus talks about hell repeatedly and concretely. Furthermore, he depicts it as a state of separation that people are eternally conscious of. Lastly, Jesus quelled any notion of leaving hell (even being won out of it by love), by revealing that a barrier exists between heaven and hell that prevents even the saints from going over to hell for a stint. So whether this story speaks to the temporal aspects of Sheol (“Hades is the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Sheol...to indicate the realm of the dead” (Elwell, 829)) or to eternal aspects following the final judgment, it is clear that “there is no reversal of destiny after one's death.” (Howell, 244).
   
   

• Marshall, Howard I.. Gasque, W. Ward. The New International Greek Testament Commentary: The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1978.
  
• Elwell, Walter. A.. Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1989.
  
• Howell Jr., Don N.. The Passion of the Servant. Eugene: Wipf & Stock - Resource Publications. 2009.