The Rich Man and Lazarus

December 7
The Rich Man and Lazarus (Author Unknown)

In the story that Jesus told in Luke 16, he referred to two characters, a “rich man” and a man named “Lazarus”, both of whom died (Luke 16:19, 20, 22). The “rich man” then found himself “being in torments” (Luke 16:23), and he proceeded to make some requests.

To start with, he sought relief and, oddly enough, in his appeal he included the petition “send Lazarus…” (Luke 16:24). The “rich man” was then told why that could not happen (Luke 16:25-26). Following this, the “rich man” made another appeal involving “Lazarus”, “send him [Lazarus] to my father’s house: for I have five brothers; that he [Lazarus] may testify to them” (Luke 16:27-28). Notice what Jesus did here with this story. The dead “rich man” was asking if someone named “Lazarus” could return from the dead to “testify” unto his “brethren”, who were still alive.

Jesus also underscores the fact that this was precisely what the “rich man” was requesting. When the “rich man” was told that his brothers “have Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29) he protested, because he thought that sending Lazarus back from the dead would lead them to respond differently – “if one went to them from the dead, they will repent” (Luke 16:30). Sadly, however, the “rich man” was informed, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead” (Luke 16:31). Jesus ended the story here.

Imagine the effect that this story would have had on those who actually heard Jesus teach it, especially his disciples. The day that the disciples heard Jesus speak these words, it is likely that they assumed that this story was no different than Jesus’ other teaching stories. But what do you suppose went through their minds when they later saw part of this story come true? That is, when an individual named Lazarus did rise from the dead!

Who Was Jesus Speaking About?

Some will try to take the ‘moral of the story’ and apply it to the situation of the high priest, rulers, elders, and scribes who refused to repent after the resurrection of Jesus. While this might appear to be a good fit, let’s take a closer look at this. To begin with, note the contrast between the way Jesus ended the story (“if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead”) and the response to the news of the resurrection of Jesus, which has been persuading people for the last 2000 years!

Moreover, consider this fact: in the scriptures the resurrected Jesus did not appear to unbelievers. After the resurrection, every recorded appearance of Jesus was to those that believed or would believe. He did not appear before the chief priests, elders, and/or their council to “testify” to them. These facts seem to hinder a comparison between the resurrected Jesus and the person who was requested by the “rich man” in Luke 16:30, the one who the “rich man” was sure would bring about repentance in those who already had “Moses and the prophets” (Luke 16:29).

While it has frequently been related to Jesus’ resurrection, His witnesses in the New Testament, and the good news of the gospel, this story might be better understood if we consider the possibility that in Luke 16:19-31, Jesus was articulating a prophecy. Jesus’ delay and words prior to raising Lazarus may well support this idea.

The Luke 16 story has several parallels to the real life Lazarus. In both cases Lazarus died, but in the story, we don’t see him raised; we only hear the request. Also, while there are no words of Lazarus recorded in the Bible, it is certain that he did “testify” about Jesus to those with whom he spoke.

In addition, Lazarus became a living testimony to the power of Jesus and because of him “many of the Jews went away and believed on Jesus”. But just like the response described in Luke 16, the Jewish leaders (who had “Moses and the prophets”) were not persuaded – even though a Lazarus was sent to them from the dead.

Eyewitnesses to this miracle “went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done”; yet instead of repenting, “the chief priests and Pharisees” plotted to kill Jesus.

“Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, “You know nothing at all! 50 You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish. 51 He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, 52 and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. 53 So from that day on they plotted to take his life,” John 11:49-53.

The “chief priests” sought to kill Lazarus also (John12:10). So, given the foregoing facts, do you think the reaction described by Jesus in Luke 16:31 was a prophecy of that response?