THE RICH MAN & LAZARUS

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Luke 16:9-31

There is a sense in which even the Christian and instructed heart would willingly pay no attention to this account. There is something in it from which the mind instinctively recoils. If that be our reaction, we do not recoil from it any more than God does. That picture of the condition of the human soul beyond the narrow span of this life is not a picture of what God wills for the human soul. It is a part of that which was described by one of the ancient prophets as "the strange act" of God. It is a revelation of things eternal and necessary; and the Biblical Revelation would play false to human experience and understanding if it veiled some of these things from our eyes, because of reluctance to consider them.

First of all, what we need to consider is that the soul, as an immaterial element of man’s person, is wholly tangible. In the Word of God, the soul is very real; certainly not altogether outside the realm of possible tangibility. Our Lord taught this clearly in His remarkable account here in Luke concerning this rich man and Lazarus. The language of this passage is strikingly similar to that in Rev. 6:9-11, where the souls in heaven are not only seen by St. John but themselves see, hear, speak, are at rest, and are concerned with what is happening on earth. Furthermore, these souls are comforted with the divine assurance that justice in their cases will be done, but they must wait until the full number of the martyrs out of “the great tribulation” is complete. Such language cannot be materialized into mere physical blood crying out from the ground (as Hengstenberg) or dissolved into “victorious lives” (as Kik). For if the souls of the rich man and Lazarus were literal, there is no sound reason for doubting the reality of the martyred souls in Rev. 6:9-11; and if these are real, so are the souls in Rev. 20:4.

The question arises as we approach this account, was this a parable, or was it the record of an actual event? Some believe that it was such a record, and that it should not strictly be treated as a parable, be­cause Luke does not call it such, and because our Lord began with an apparently definite statement, "There was a certain rich man." He did not name him, but continuing, He did name the beggar. It is the only case in all the parables where He used a name. It may be this was a statement of an actual case, which He had seen, and which perhaps those listening to Him, had seen. I do not dogmatize, but that position applies equally to the account of the unrighteous steward, which we have considered. Jesus began then in exactly the same way, "There was a certain rich man." He did not name him, or his steward. That is the only difference in the method between this parable and that. But if these were actual cases known to Jesus, that He used them paraboli­cally there can be no doubt whatever.

What was the subject then He was intending to illustrate? Consider quite simply the figure He employed, and from those two things attempt to deduce the special teaching.

In reading this account there are two perils we must avoid. We have no right to leave anything out of the account that is in it. Secondly we have no right to read into it anything which is not found therein. These two principles are vital. Some have been dogmatic on the question of duration, which may be suggested. There is nothing here to warrant any such position. Going as far as our Lord has gone, we consider first the account only, and we ask, what subject was it Jesus was intending to illustrate? He never told an account without a purpose, and that purpose is always discoverable in the context. Looking back at the 14th verse we read that "the Pharisees who were lovers of money, heard all these things." What things? The teaching He had been definitely and spe­cially giving to His disciples, which found its culmination in His com­mand, "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of un-righteousness," and when it, the mammon fails, they the friends made, shall receive you into the eternal habitations. He had uttered that culminating dictum, "Ye cannot serve God and mammon," and when the Pharisees heard these things, because they were lovers of money, they laughed at Him, "they scoffed Him." The Greek word is a strong one. It means not merely that they smiled, but with ribald mockery, they laughed at Him, mocked Him, at the idea of the relation between material and spiritual wealth. That led to this account, though not im­mediately, for in the verses preceding the 19th, we find that He un­masked their motive and their method, unmasking the reason why they laughed at His interpretation of the relative values between material wealth and spiritual, between mammon and the fear of God; and the reason was as He said, that they lived in the sight of men, instead of in the sight of God.

Then continuing, He showed how they were unfaithful in much, in great things, and consequently they were not to be trusted in the very little. Again there is the contrast between the spiritual and the ma­terial, between the eternal and the temporal, between the much of life in its vastness and all the ages, and the very little of life conditioned in dust, on the material level. He told them men unfaithful in the much were unfaithful in the little, and the relation of the much to the very little, of the spiritual to the material is the relation of time to eternity; and so the relation of money and its possession to the life that lies beyond. That was the occasion of the account. In connection with those solemn and revealing words, He said, "There was a certain rich man." Whenever Christ used the term certain, He knew of the person or place He was speaking. This is always true in the Bible He wrote.

In this account we find the one occasion when our Lord stretched out His hand, and drew aside the veil that hangs between the now and the hereafter, and allowed men to look and see not merely what lay beyond, but the intimate relationship between the now and the then, between the here and the hereafter.

Take the account quite simply. Jesus drew a contrast between two men living on earth, on two entirely different levels. The one was wealthy, living in luxury and showiness. It is significant that there is not a thing against this rich man, measuring him by the standards of time. We are not told that he was vulgar, though he was terribly so, as every man is who is living only on the level of the dust. No court of law in America or England would have put this man on trial. The things we usually classify as vulgar sins are not in sight. There is no suggestion that he was living a depraved life, but he was rich. That was not wrong. He was clothed in purple and fine linen. Those are small expressions, but in the East that meant the elements and things manifesting his riches. They spoke of abounding wealth. Even when it is said that the beggar was laid at his gate, the word used is pulon, which means a gate full of artistry and exquisite beauty. He lived there in wealth and luxury. The revealing word of course is this, "faring sumptuously every day." A marginal note says, "Living in mirth and splendor every day." There is only one word that conveys that in English, flamboyantly. What does that mean? Living ostentatiously, in abound­ing wealth, dressed in purple and fine linen. We are told that a robe of fine linen was worth six times its weight in gold. These simple state­ments are intended to show a man on the earth level, lacking nothing, enjoying everything, and especially enjoying the fact that he pos­sessed, and could show it in ostentatious living, flamboyant living. We are told that the beggar lay at his beautiful gate, and would happily be filled with the crumbs that fell from his table. Possibly he was, but certainly the rich man knew nothing about it, or if he did and suffered it, there was no credit to him. When we allow beggars or paupers to have things we do not want any more, there is no credit to us, rummage sales nonetheless!

What about the other man? There is no more poignant picture of abject poverty than that man, living in hunger, evidently lacking the necessities of life, and the nourishment of the body, so that he was full of sores. We are not told how he came to be there. There is no dealing with social conditions. They were there, or that man had never been in that position. There is no blame attached to circumstances and en­vironment, and none is suggested as attaching to the man. As a matter of fact, the issue, when he crossed over, proves he was a godly man that he believed in the God of Abraham. Poor, weak, so far down, that the rough outside dogs had pity on him, and with healing salve, licked his sores. There is no contrast more remarkable than that of two men on the earth level.

But our Lord had not finished His account, and those two men had not finished. Something came to them both. What was it? "The beggar died." "The rich man also died." They both died; and all the ostenta­tious splendor of the rich man could not buy off the rider on the pale horse, when he approached his beautiful gate. He died. And the beggar could not escape, had he so desired to do, the lot that was common. He died. That is how it ends for all, you Pharisees, publicans and sinners, Christ might have said. Death is coming. Now draw the veil and look beyond. Is there any difference? Yes.

What did He say about the rich man when he died? He "was buried." Was the beggar buried, we ask? I do not think so. A beggar of that type, completely destitute, alone, covered with sores, at last breathing out his spirit in all his poverty, in those times was not buried. Almost inevitably the cleaners passed the dead body, unknown, unclean, and hurried him away in the early dawn until they came to Tophet, Gehenna, the rubbish and refuse heap of fire, where they flung the body in. That is a known fact of the time, and the very fact we are not told he was buried, leads us to suppose such an end for him. The rich man was buried, on the earth level, and one wonders how much the funeral cost! I have no doubt it harmonized with the kind of life he had lived.

Is that all? No, that is not all. What about the beggar? In Hades he was "comforted." Our Lord used a Jewish figure of speech, Hades, the place of departed spirits. The rich man was in Hades. So was the beggar. They were both there in Hades. That is not Hell, the place of torment. The rich man was in Hades, in torment, and the beggar was in Hades and was comforted; one great realm that of the departed spirits, clearly divided as Jewish theology taught and we believe. On one side, to use a geographical expression, the spirits of the evil, the spirits of the lawless, of the rebellious, those who have forgotten and rebelled against God. On the other side, the souls under the altar, a Hebrew figure of speech used in the Apocalypse; souls in Abraham's bosom, the souls of the righteous, who on the earth level trusted in God, and were obedient to God, and walked in the ways of Jehovah. They both passed into Hades, but their experience there was different. The beggar was comforted. That is a great word, parakaleo. He was called near. The rich man was tormented, that is, in anguish, and the root of the word means the uttermost dejection, sinking. The one man was called near to Abraham's bosom, and to the God Who he had served. The other man buried and banished, sinking with the treatment and the torture resulting from his neglect of God. That is the picture.

What has this account to say to us? Take the simple plain facts. By that picture and that account our Lord insisted upon the fact first of existence beyond the article which men call death. Dying is the end of earthly and conscious opportunities and activities. Beyond that, however, personality and consciousness continue, whether it is that of the rich man, or the beggar. Crossing over the boundary line that we speak of as death, they are not extinct, and they are conscious. That is the first tremendous truth that is taught by the account.

The next is that the conditions beyond, result from life as it is lived on the earth level. The one had left behind him the things in which he gloried and boasted and had paraded. All the flamboyant living was over. It was left, the purple and the fine linen, to the moths, and the wealth to quarrelling relatives, if we are to believe humanity is the same, and it is. He went out into eternity a pauper, and a pauper stripped. The little left, he lost the much that was never possessed. It was too late to gain possession. The other man crossing over was drawn near to the much, near to the spiritual, near to the eternal, near to the heart of the God of law, Who is the God of love, drawn near to reality, drawn near to God. The condition beyond was the result of the method of life here.

One more thing and perhaps the most arresting of all. We have the conversation as Jesus described it, between this rich man and Abraham. We hear that haunting cry, as the rich man said concerning his brethren, "If one go to them from the dead, they will repent.” Then this startling and amazing answer of Abraham as recorded by our Lord, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead."

In other words life is never affected by the miracles, if it is not affected by the moral. Does that seem a little hard to believe? Does it not seem as though if Lazarus had been sent, those brethren would have repented? All the facts of the case are against it, and prove the truth of what Jesus said. A little later on, another man bearing the same name, Lazarus, was raised from the dead. What effect had it on these men? They tried to kill him. Finally Jesus Himself was raised from the dead. What effect did it have? None upon those who were living on the earth level, except as they repented and turned. They put Him to death, and when He was raised from the dead, they became busy trying to put to death all those who followed Him. A tremendous truth this. The spectacular, and the miraculous will not have any effect upon the life of men and women if the moral has failed to appeal.