Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus utilizes an imaginary conversation to explain how you should live in the present life.

Thomas R. Shepherd

Wealth and poverty reside next to each other throughout the world. In the United States, incredible disparities stand side by side with the homeless stretching out their hands to Wall Street bankers and with disabled veterans pleading for help at busy street intersections. In other countries, the same stark disparities exist, with squatter settlements in India in comparison to the riches of Mumbai and favelas in the midst of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The United Nations estimates that one billion or more people worldwide reside in slums, typified by poor housing, lack of clean water, and no electricity.1 What should the Christian response be personally and corporately to such conditions?

In the first part of this study,2 the scholarly debate regarding the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16) was described in relation to the afterlife. The story contains strong indications of being an imaginative parable instead of a report of real events. A long history of commentary on the parable has interpreted it as teaching a conscious intermediate state after death before the final judgment. However, our assessment of the data showed that such a view would not stand against the overwhelming biblical witness of wholistic anthropology and eschatology focused on the resurrection and Parousia.

Turning to the books of Luke and Acts, we found evidence of the same biblical anthropology and eschatology. Counter to those who suggest that the author of these books had either a confused or composite eschatological schema, we considered the contexts and genre of the Luke-Acts material used to support such a claim (particularly the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the story of the thief on the cross, and the story of the stoning of Stephen). We found that these stories were either in a parabolic context (the parable) or that the supposed implication of immediate transfer to heaven (the thief and Stephen) was explainable on other grounds consistent with broader biblical anthropology and eschatology.

This part of the study turns to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to test the validity of the assertion that its teaching does not focus on the afterlife but rather on the use of resources in the service of others in the present life.

The Context of the Parable

The parable appears in a context focused on money and its use. Luke 16 contains a contrast of parables and instruction on the use of wealth, beginning with the intriguing parable of the dishonest manager (Luke 16:1–9), followed by Jesus’ teaching about faithfulness and serving God rather than money (vss. 10­–13). These teachings are followed by a reference to the Pharisees’ derision of Jesus since, Luke tells us, they were lovers of money (vs. 14). Jesus responded that God knew their hearts and “‘what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God’” (vs. 15).3 These words are followed by miscellaneous teachings regarding the law and prophets and divorce (vss. 16–18). The last part of the chapter (vss. 19–31) returns to the subject of wealth and its use—the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which is the subject of this two-part study. The point of the story is not about what happens when a person dies, but rather about how one should live in the present world—in particular, how resources should be used, or not used.

The Scholarly Debate on the Parable’s Teaching Regarding Resources

Many scholars, though not all, see the focus of the parable on the right use of resources.4 The rich man should have had pity on poor Lazarus and helped him with food and other resources.

This perspective carries into the modern discussion of the parable. François Bovon sees the parable as an imaginary example story that teaches the importance of doing good, of repenting and following Jesus’ example.5 John Nolland argues that this is a cautionary tale about the need to take seriously the ethical demands to care for the poor as found in the Law and the Prophets. The fate of the rich man is rooted in his disregard of those demands. “Entrusted with the riches of this world, the rich man had generously rewarded himself during his lifetime. He has in fact been paid in full (see [Luke] 6:24) and can expect no more. Lazarus has been dreadfully short-changed in his lifetime, but now there is a redressing of the balance.”6

Craig Blomberg notes that the rich man was not condemned for being rich, but rather for doing nothing to help the poor man.7 He sees a frightening parallel to Western world Christians who spend inordinate amounts on shopping, entertainment, eating out, recreation, etc., but give little or nothing to help the poor. Darrell Bock echoes Blomberg, “material possessions are not the point; the use of them is.”8

It is Richard Bauckham who stands out among modern interpreters for arguing that the reason for the reversal after death in the parable is that the rich man has enjoyed amazing wealth and the poor man has experienced deep poverty.9 He counters others who argue for some basis in the actions of the individuals for the reversal (such as: the rich man misused his wealth, or obtained it unjustly, or his neglect of the poor man; and that the poor man must be pious).10

However, Bauckham does accept that there is an implicit standard of judgment found in Luke 19:25—the justice of God.11 He argues that the wrong in the story is the “stark inequality” between the living conditions of the two men.12 That is, it is not something residing in the people, their character or actions, but rather the fact of gross disparity between resources available to the two men that Bauckham feels the parable is pointing toward. Given these disparate viewpoints in scholarship, we turn to the narrative analysis of the passage to obtain a clearer grasp on the point the story is driving at.

A Narrative-Exegetical Study of the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

A narrative analysis of a passage can be presented in one of two formats. One method is to discuss the passage verse by verse, presenting the narrative data for each verse in order. The other is to present the data under each of the narrative analysis categories. This study follows the latter procedure so that the reader may see the way in which each category of data points toward the focus of the parable.

The parable’s linkage to other stories in the cultural milieu of Jesus’ time as illustrated by Bauckham and others is instructive and helpful in making sense of the narrative data.

Settings and props. The story takes place in two spatio-temporal locations—this life and what happens after death. The setting in life is mundane in that the common experience of the poor and the rich are cataloged though starkly contrasted with one another. The rich man and Lazarus are never narrated as meeting in this part of the story, they are inside or outside the house, and their circumstances are completely opposite to one another—one with grandiose wealth, the other with grinding poverty. The reader/listener sees the hyperbole of the vast difference.

Props in this part of the story abound and display the contrast between the characters. The rich man is finely clothed in shining purple apparel and eats sumptuously. The poor man is lying at the rich man’s gate and seems to have nothing to eat. His body is covered with sores (parallel to Job), and dogs lick his wounds. The difference between the characters could not be more stark, with the locations and props highlighting the differences—again, striking hyperbole.

After death everything reverses. The poor man, mentioned last in the first part of the story is now mentioned first (thus a chiasm—“the first shall be last and the last shall be first”). Lazarus is taken to “‘Abraham’s bosom,’” a banquet-type picture of people around a table on couches enjoying a meal. The rich man, in sharp contrast, is in torment in Hades. Shortly into this section of the story, props will again abound as the rich man pleads for a drop of water from Lazarus’ finger to cool his burning tongue. But alas, a great chasm prevents any travel between the two places.

The last setting to be mentioned in the story is the house of the rich man’s father, a location back in the realm of the living. But that location is only mentioned; it will not be visited. However, it is important nonetheless because it is tied with the revelation that will make the point of the parable.

The settings and props are hyperbolic in nature so that the point being made by them cannot be missed. They speak of vast inequalities. These inequalities are accompanied by lack of action, not only in this life, but surprisingly in the afterlife as well.

Characters. Three main characters inhabit this story—the rich man, Lazarus, and Abraham. As is typical of Jesus’ parables, the story includes an authority figure who stands as arbiter of the dispute or problem between the different characters. Father Abraham stands in favor of the poor man, not the rich man. Abraham is characterized by telling with both his name and the title “‘“Father,”’” but also by showing as he dialogues with the rich man. He comes across as judicial in always refusing the rich man’s requests, but with a touch of gentleness as he calls him “‘“Child.”’” Abraham states that he is powerless to do anything for the rich man because of the great chasm God has set between where he is (presumably heaven) and Hades where the rich man is. Thus, behind this authority figure, Abraham, stands God in the shadows, the true moral arbiter of the universe.

The rich man is the most fully developed character in the story, presented by both showing and telling. The settings and props noted above set forth his extreme wealth, and at the same time, by the absence of action, his insensitivity and neglect of the poor man. Here is where Bauckham seems to have failed to reckon well with not only what is said in the story, but also what is not said. The rich man’s great wealth in the very presence of the poor man’s plight should call forth mercy, but instead there is silence. The very law and prophets that Abraham references later in the story are full of calls for mercy for the needy.

When the rich man gets to Hades, he suddenly takes notice of Lazarus and hopes that Abraham will send him with a drop of water to cool his burning tongue. No such mercy is shown. The rich man seems to treat Lazarus like a servant sent to bring something he needs. He never speaks to the poor man, always addressing Father Abraham instead. As the story develops, the rich man shows persistence, arguing with Abraham about what could and should be done. He takes interest in his brothers, so that they do not end up with his fate. He does not have the last word, however, Abraham does in pointing to Moses and the Prophets as sufficient revelation for the brothers.

Lazarus is characterized both by showing and telling. He has the name that makes him stand out in contrast to the nameless rich man. He is characterized by telling, but much more extensively by showing, particularly in the description in verses 20 and 21—helpless, sick, hungry, needy—it is a striking picture. Suddenly, after death, he is honored and well cared for, in the place of honor at the side of Father Abraham. But he still says nothing. The rich man recognizes him and treats him as a servant (showing that he had noticed him sometime at his gate during this life), but Abraham will not disturb his repose in the land of comfort.

Plot. The plot of this story is straightforward, although subtle, in its opening lines. The story begins (Luke 16:19) by describing an especially wealthy man. He has no problems, it seems, with all his needs met. However, the second verse (vs. 20) presents a very poor and sick man named Lazarus lying at the rich man’s gate. This juxtaposition of two diametrically opposite pictures, amazing wealth and grinding poverty, puts on display the implicit twofold problem of the story. Problem 1—a man is in great need, sick, and hungry. And next to this picture, Problem 2—a man with great wealth, all the means necessary to help the poor man, but he does nothing to relieve his agony. Hyperbole is used both to describe the rich man and the poor man. It makes the twofold problem stand out in sharp relief.

After death all shifts. The poor man is exalted to “Abraham’s bosom,” by his side presumably at a banquet table, and the rich man is burning in Hades. It is a rags-to-riches (riches-to-rags) plot with the downtrodden Lazarus receiving comfort and the rich man anguish (vs. 23).

One might expect the story to end there, but the majority of the story (vss. 24–31) is yet to come as a complication enters the story. The rich man sees Abraham and Lazarus far off and makes a request of the father of the Jews. The request is for a small mercy—indeed, the smallest favor—a drop of water on the tip of Lazarus’ finger. This is soundly refused by Abraham in two steps. First, Abraham notes that the rich man received good things in his life and Lazarus bad and that, in justice, this is reversed in the afterlife. Second, the father of the Jews indicates that a great chasm is fixed between them that prevents crossing over from either direction.

The rich man does not give up, adding yet another complication to the story. He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them to change so that they may not end up in the place of torment (vss. 27, 28). It is another request for mercy. But Abraham counters that the brothers have Moses and the prophets and can hear them (vs. 29). However, the desperate rich man replies that they would repent if someone came from the dead to them (vs. 30). Abraham refuses yet one more time saying that if they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they would not be convinced if someone rose from the dead (vs. 31).

It is a striking and unusual ending to the plot of the story. First, the lack of mercy shown to the rich man stands in marked contrast to the story of Abraham in life—during which he pleaded with the Lord for mercy for Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18), and step by step the Lord agreed not to destroy the cities if He found but 10 righteous people there. God, in fact, shows mercy beyond Abraham’s request as the only righteous in the city, Lot and family, is saved by God’s great mercy (Genesis 19). None of this appears in Luke 16, as Abraham refuses the rich man’s pleas for mercy, and conveys that God has set it so with the great chasm.

The second striking feature of the plot is that the resolution at the end of the story is open-ended. Did the five brothers listen to Moses and the prophets and repent? The story does not tell us. It is this open ending of the plot that helps explain some of the oddities of the story. Something similar happens in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15 which also has an open ending. We are not told if the older brother in the story goes in to the feast with his father. The point of that parable is an appeal to the Pharisees to stop criticizing Jesus’ ministry to the outcasts and to “join the party,” welcoming sinners who are attracted by Jesus’ gospel message and fellowship.

In a similar way, the plot of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is an appeal particularly to those with riches to “‘“hear Moses and the Prophets”’”” (Luke 16:31) and to eschew the rich man’s lack of action in the present life. Bauckham is correct when he states, “The point is no more than the law and the prophets say–and that no more than the law and the prophets say is required.”13 One does not need extraordinary revelation to know what is required of humankind. “‘He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?’” (Micah 6:8). It was this that the rich man failed to do in life, and so he did not receive it in death.

Actions. Actions are the “baby steps” of plot. They are the individual verbs used throughout a story to carry the plot forward. Each verb has three characteristics in story analysis—duration (how much space is used in the narrative to tell the action), frequency (how many times the action is reported in the narrative), and order (in what order the actions are presented in the narrative). The details related to these three characteristics of each action are extensive, so only a summary can be provided here.

The first scene of the story (Luke 16:19–21) relates in summary format the lives of the rich man and Lazarus. No words are spoken. However, the use of present participle (“desiring” NKJV) and imperfect verbs (“who was clothed,” “the dogs came and licked,” ESV) give the sense that these actions were the common, continuing activities of the two men. This perspective is confirmed by the use of the terms “‘at his gate was laid’” “‘covered with sores.’” (ESV). The poor man was placed at that gate presumably every day to get the attention of the rich man, and he had been covered with sores for some time. Thus, the opening scene summarizes the ongoing character and life of these two men, one in opulence every day, the other in deep distress at the same time.

As noted in the expression of the plot, things change after death, and the same happens with the actions. The overall arc of the story at this point revolves around a tableau conversation between the rich man and Abraham. The rich man makes a summary request for mercy in verse 24. This request is then broken down into three pleas—for water (vs. 24), to send Lazarus to warn his brothers (vss. 27, 28), and again requesting that Lazarus be sent to his brothers (vs. 30).

Abraham responds each time with denial of the requests. The first request receives a long, two-step response illustrating the injustice and impossibility of granting even a drop of water. The rich man and Lazarus have, so to speak, traded places from life to afterlife, and Abraham grants that this is fair given what each experienced in life (vs. 25). But further, the patriarch refers to a great chasm that divides them (vs. 26). The verb “‘“has been fixed”’” is a perfect passive (“support, make firm, strengthen”). This format is typical of action by God—a “divine passive.” It is rather striking that Abraham intimates that someone from his side might want to come relieve the rich man’s suffering, but, because of the chasm set by God, it is impossible.

The rich man shifts his plea to send Lazarus to his brothers. But Abraham twice denies the request, citing in each case that the brothers should listen to Moses and the prophets (vss. 29, 31). Abraham does not say to listen to their writings, but to Moses and the prophets themselves, as though these ancient writers were still speaking. And, of course, the writings of Moses and the prophets were read each week in the synagogue. Thus, their voices were still being heard. But, from what the rich man says, it appears the brothers are not listening, hence, his request for Lazarus to return from the dead to warn them. Abraham argues that ears closed to Moses and the prophets would not be open to a risen witness. The truth of these words finds fulfillment in another Lazarus who did rise from the dead, but whom the religious leaders plotted to kill along with Jesus to silence his witness (John 12:9–11).

Four gaps appear in the story—Why is Lazarus given the place of honor (Luke 16:22)? Why does the rich man ask for the smallest of mercies (vs. 24)? Why does Abraham refuse to send Lazarus (vs. 29)? Do the five brothers repent (vs. 30)? The first and third are addressed in the narrative. Lazarus receives the place of honor in the afterlife because he had suffering in life (vs. 25). Abraham does not send Lazarus because the brothers already have the witness of Moses and the prophets (vss. 29, 31).

The other two gaps are not filled, though some hints appear in Luke. The gap concerning the drop of water parallels the request of the prodigal son in 15:17–19. In the prodigal’s situation, asking again for sonship would suggest arrogance and not repentance. The smallest request, to be a servant, if granted would still be a demonstration of mercy, but in a relationship of reciprocity and a culture of honor/shame it would seem more appropriate for a dishonored suppliant to request.

The same is true for the rich man, but with one major difference. The prodigal was alive, the rich man is dead. The rich man’s small request would suggest some remorse on his part, just as the prodigal’s humble request seconded his expression of repentance (“‘“I have sinned against heaven and before you”’” (Luke 15:18). But the fact that the request for mercy by the rich man is consistently denied would play into the focus of the story—that the time for repentance and change is during life, not after death. The rich man cannot make up for his sins in the world of the living by remorse in the hereafter. Therefore, his request is consistently denied.

The last gap, whether or not the brothers listened to Moses and the prophets and repented, as we noted above, is part of the appeal of the parable—that now in this life is the time to repent and show mercy and concern for the poor. We notice that both unfilled gaps point in the same direction—repent now, help others, or face judgment.

Time. The order in which a story is told is a fascinating but complex storytelling device to analyze. Telling events out of order is known as anachrony. It comes in two forms—prolepsis (telling something from the story world’s future in the story’s present) and analepsis (telling something from the story world’s past in the story’s present). Often these disorders in story show up in speeches, because people quite regularly talk about the past or future in their conversations. The same occurs in this parable, particularly in the conversation between the rich man and Abraham.

The anachronies are mainly prolepses related to the showing of mercy. The rich man requests it; Abraham refuses it each time. First, the rich man asks for a minor mercy for himself, a drop of water to cool his tongue (vs. 24). It is a prolepsis because it has not happened at the point the rich man asks for it. He is projecting an arc of Abraham and Lazarus showing/giving mercy. Abraham responds with an analepsis, looking back on the rich man’s life (vs. 25). He has already had his good things and Lazarus his bad things. Abraham also looks back with a reference to a chasm that God has fixed between them (vs. 26).

Next the rich man asks for his brothers, another prolepsis looking for mercy to be shown to them by Lazarus warning them, because the rich man does not want his brothers to come to the place of torment where he is (vss. 27, 28). It is again a trajectory requesting that mercy be shown, this time to his family. Interestingly, Abraham’s response switches to prolepsis, “‘“They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them”’” (vs. 29). Abraham refers to the ancient revelation that is being discussed and argues that the five brothers should listen to it. The patriarch thus ties together revelation from the past with current duty to show mercy, evidently, something the brothers are not doing.

The rich man protests that “‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent’” (vs. 30). The rich man continues his persistent use of prolepsis to paint a picture of showing mercy, thus saving his brothers from his fate. The “punch line” comes in verse 31 as Abraham again refuses with the final prolepsis, “‘“If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”’”

The rich man consistently projects a trajectory of mercy that is always answered with denial in a trajectory of justice. The rich man does not receive mercy because he did not show it.

The only analepses (vss. 25, 26) relate to God’s actions of entrusting the rich man with riches on earth, and also setting the chasm between heaven and Hades. The rich man did not sense the responsibility laid on him by the first (receiving riches), so he consequently experiences the second—the fire of Hades.

Narrator/Reader/Stylistic features. The narrator of the story is omniscient, typical of biblical stories. The narrator does not intrude into the story with any asides. The distance from the story in the first scene is sufficient to see both the rich man in his house and Lazarus outside. However, in the second scene, the view draws back to be able to take in both the rich man in Hades and Abraham and Lazarus in the realm of heavenly bliss with a wide chasm between. The location of the narrator, though, is not so far back that the reader cannot hear the conversation that ensues between the rich man and Abraham. This perspective creates some tension, since one wonders how it is possible to take in heaven and Hades in one view, a wide chasm between, and yet have the ability for the rich man and Abraham to carry on a conversation that the reader can hear. This detail points toward the imaginary character of the narrative. The ideology of the narrative is clear—God is the arbiter of all humans, both the rich and poor, the good and evil. He sets the ground rules on display in the writings of Moses and the prophets.

The reader is likely expected to be acquainted with the folktales of visits to Hades as documented by both Bovon and Bauckham in the first article of this study.14 The narrator does not refer to these other stories, but the parallels are clear so that it is likely that Jesus made use of the motifs from these stories in presenting His teaching. The storytelling method is even-handed; the reader learns the plot and progress of the story in conjunction particularly with the rich man who carries forward the conversation with Abraham. But Abraham has the last word in the denouement of the story.

Three stylistic features appear in the story. First, a chiastic structure of reference to the rich man and Lazarus (vss. 19–22, 25) in the typical fashion of A B B´ A´ (rich man, Lazarus, Lazarus, rich man). This feature plays a part in the reversal motif that runs through the parable. Settings and dialogue illustrate this motif of reversal with life followed by afterlife, Hades in contrast to heaven, suffering in contrast to comfort, justice in contrast to mercy. The third stylistic feature is the broad use of hyperbole throughout the parable—extreme wealth, grinding poverty, Hades versus heaven, torment versus comfort, the smallest mercy versus severe justice, good things versus bad things. These details help to illustrate the parabolic nature of the story and make its sharp point that this life is the location to do good to others because there is no opportunity to change after death.

Conclusion of narrative analysis. Typically, narrative features point together toward the major teaching encapsulated in the story. What is clear from the review of narrative data is that a variety of narrative characteristics work together to press home the central teaching of the parable that in accordance with the testimony of the Scriptures (Moses and the prophets) the present life is the time to show mercy to those in need.

The hyperbole visible throughout the parable raises distinct contours of difference between the rich man and Lazarus—mutely exemplifying the injustice of great need not receiving help from great resources. The settings illustrate the grand reversal when God intervenes—great want receives mercy, great indifference receives just punishment.

The characterization in the parable also displays the sharp contrasts between the characters and their reversal. Even the character of Abraham displays a contrast from his behavior in pleading for Sodom and Gomorrah. In the parable he is the exponent of strict justice. The plot of the story is rags-to-riches (riches-to-rags) resolving the twofold problem of great need and lack of help from great wealth. The complication of the rich man’s requests to Abraham and Abraham’s responses to him place on display the underlying values of the importance of listening to the ethical appeal of the law and the prophets. The contrast between Abraham in the afterlife from Abraham in life (Genesis 18) helps remind the reader of the imaginary character of the story. The open ending of the story drives home the principle of virtue—reminding the reader of the weighty responsibility that resources given by God place upon the receiver to help a suffering neighbor.

The repeated actions of the story in the opening scene illustrate the everyday, mundane but ongoing character of the lives of the two men, showing that the rich man’s neglect was not momentary. The tableau nature of the conversation of the rich man in Hades with Abraham at table with Lazarus arrests the listener’s attention. The unfilled gaps of why the rich man asked for the smallest mercy and the question if the five brothers repented both point toward the importance of showing mercy in life. There is no opportunity for change afterward.

The vast number of prolepses in the story revolve around the request for mercy. The rich man pleads for it; Abraham refuses it. Those who refuse to show mercy in the present life will receive justice in the afterlife. The chiastic structures point toward the grand reversal that God’s justice brings, and the hyperbole throughout the parable heightens the awareness of the call for ethical behavior.

All these details point to the central teaching of the parable: Showing mercy in this life to those in need is practicing justice. A failure to do so leads to justice with no mercy in the afterlife. If you show mercy in this world, you receive it in the next. If you do not show mercy, what you receive is justice (what you deserve). This plays in to the Lukan theology of forgiving and helping others, because if you do not, you will not receive forgiveness and mercy from God (Luke 6:20–45; 10:25­–37; 11:1–4; 12:33; 14:12–14; 18:22).

Application of the Parable to Life Today

The parable is a clear, forthright reminder that helping those in need is the privilege and responsibility of the Christian. The parable is not a description of what happens when you die, but rather is an imperative on how to live. Each of us comes in contact with those in need. It can be tempting to judge or prejudge how they came into their lot. Such assessment can lead to fatal inaction and complacency not unlike the rich man in the parable. Better to help “too much” than to wait for “the worthy poor” to come along.

But the question of what “need” is arises as well. Many people feel they do not have enough themselves and that if they had “a little more,” then they would have sufficient to help others. It is a mirage that recedes into the distance. Money is seductive, and its use for personal needs can be intoxicating—as happened to the rich man in the story. In contrast, it is better to set aside some set amount or percentage on a regular basis for helping others than to wait for some great rise in resources to enable generosity.

In the ancient world, the means of helping the poor was through personal charity particularly in patron-client relationships, or in Judaism through community agencies. In modern societies, governmental social safety nets have taken over most of these functions that help ease the weight of grinding poverty. This procedure of easing suffering is in keeping with the parable’s implied ethic of helping the poor.

However, these governmental structures do not absolve us from personal benevolence for those in need. The parable clearly teaches the importance of personal charity. The difference between government involvement in social support and personal action in generosity is the difference between what is required (taxes) and what is freely given. The one is used to create a broad social network greater than any individual can provide, the other keeps the heart sensitive to fellow humans in need and ties us to them in bonds of friendship that government agencies can never provide. The two in combination can help to lift up the Lazarus at our door to a place at the table where he himself can become a provider for others.

Thomas R. Shepherd, PhD, DrPH, is Senior Research Professor of New Testament at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan, U.S.A. He is also the pastor of the Eau Claire and Dowagiac (Michigan) Seventh-day Adventist churches.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. See Carrie Kellenberger, “Slums Around the World”: https://www.myseveralworlds.com/2009/04/05/slums-around-the-world.

2. Part 1 of this article: https://www.perspectivedigest.org/archive/28-3/the-parable-of-the-rich-man-and-lazarus--1.

3. Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references in this article are quoted from the English Standard Version of the Bible.

4. Ronald F. Hock, “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19–31,” Journal of Biblical Languages 106:3 (1987): 453n23 lists the following scholars who do not see the parable critiquing wealth—A. Plummer, Luke, ICC (New York: Scribner, 1914), 390, 396, 397; K. H. Rengstorf, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (NTD; 9th ed.); (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962) 193, 195; Joachim Jeremías, The Parables of Jesus (New York: Scribner, 1963), 185; John D. Crossan, In Parables: The Challenge of the Historical Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1973), 66; J. Ernst, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (RNT 3; Regensburg: Pustet, 1977), 472–473; and J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke XXXIV, AB 28A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1985), 1,132.

5. François Bovon, Luke 2, Hermeneia (Minneapolis. Minn.: Fortress Press, 2013), 473.

6. John Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34, WBC 35c (Dallas, Texas: Word Books, 1993), 832.

7. Craig L. Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012), 262.

8. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 9:51–24:53, BECNT (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1996), 1372–73n26.

9. Richard Bauckham, “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels,” New Testament Studies 37 (1991): 231–233.

10. Ibid., 231.

11. Ibid., 232.

12. Ibid.

13. Ibid., 245.

14. Bovon, Luke 2, 476–7; Bauckham, “The Rich Man and Lazarus,” 225–231, 234–242. Cf. also the analysis of Kim Papaioannou, Geography of Hell in the Teaching of Jesus (Eugene Ore.: Wipf and Stock, 2013), 115–122.