This interpretation of the story of the rich man and Lazarus was suggested to me by Byron Bradfute, a local friend of sorts!). He claims that it was an original idea of his; so I accept it as such, for Brad is trustworthy (at times). If you disagree with this interpretation, give Brad all the credit for it. If you think it is a brilliant revelation of truth, consider me as the one taking the rough stone which he found and polishing it to such a sparkle.

Brad began by asking the question that I have been asked many times: Is the account of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 a parable or a true story? He considers it to be a parable, and I agree that it is figurative – either a parable or an allegory. Regarding it as a parable, I previously thought the rich man and Lazarus were not real persons but that all other points of the story were literal. But parables teach hidden lessons, and many parables emphasize only one point. An allegory is a sustained analogy, a prolonged metaphor which suppresses all mention of the principal subject as in the story that Nathan told David about the rich man taking the poor man’s only ewe lamb. The subject was not mentioned in the allegory.

Thinking that we might have missed some less obvious meaning, I would invite you to explore some more with me. What are the veiled messages in this parable or the suppressed subject of this allegory? Are we to understand that angels carry away the bodies of the poor when they die but leave the rich dead to be buried? Is Jesus teaching that the redeemed dead actually go into Abraham’s arms in physical bodies immediately at their death, that the damned are cast into literal fire in their physical bodies the moment they die, and that the saved and the lost can see and communicate with each other? Is Abraham in charge of the unseen world and departed spirits? Does this give us the actual locations for those dubious diagrams about “Where are the dead?” Is Jesus teaching here that wealth is sinful and that poverty is virtue?

In most of the parables, Jesus set forth some veiled truth about the coming kingdom. Some of those parables dealt with the forthcoming rejection of the Christ and his kingdom by the Jews and their forthcoming rejection by God as a consequence. Let us think of this parable in such a framework.

Jesus said much about the Jews losing their favored status with God. Early in his ministry, in commending the faith of the Gentile centurion, he said to the Jews: “I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Matt. 8:11f). Is this not a parallel to the account of the rich man and Lazarus?

In the parable of the vineyard Jesus warned, “He will put those wretches to a miserable death, and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons (Matt. 21:33-41).

In another parable, because they spurned the king’s invitation to the wedding feast, the wedding hall was filled with others and “The king was angry, and sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city” (Matt. 22:1-14). The guests were not judged according to favored national or racial status but according to character depicted by the wedding garment. Because of their forthcoming rejection, Jesus pronounced woes against them prophetically declaring, “Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate” (Matt. 23).

The account under study is generally thought to be a lesson concerning the use of earthly wealth, and some of the context could support that approach. But the context also speaks of the good news of the kingdom (16:16).

Lazarus — whose name means “without help” — pictures the spiritually starving Gentile world that was ignored and disdained by the Jews. In his powerless state, he was laid, not near the table or the door, but outside the gate. Hear Paul concerning the condition of the Gentile: ‘Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands – remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ” (Eph. 2:11-13).

While the Jews were enjoying the “chosen” status “near” to God, the Gentiles were “far off.” In the company of dogs (idols), they had repulsive spiritual sores, soothed only by the licking of their pagan beliefs. While they were starving, the smug Jews had little mission even to toss them spiritual crumbs. A few proselytes would find crumbs through which means they might be led to become “twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt. 23:15). But now they would be welcomed by Abraham as his children through faith and as the chosen of God in him, along with individual Jews who together would become the new spiritual Israel.

Even as the Jews trusted that they were children of Abraham and children of the kingdom, they had become children of disobedience, children of hell, and children of their father, the devil. The roles were reversed so that Lazarus was in Abraham’s arms and the rich man was rejected and “far off.” The Jewish nation with its earthly hopes was overthrown in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews were dispersed among the Gentiles. In the succeeding centuries, the rich man has been calling for mercy from Lazarus as he has been scattered and persecuted among the nations. This allegory had an earthly and a spiritual meaning projecting into the centuries and into eternity.

This message was prophetic. Jesus was not describing the condition that existed at the moment, for their full rejection of Jesus was yet to come. The rich man asked that one be sent back from the dead to induce belief. Jews asked for greater signs, but they had Moses and the prophets, the same testimonies that would cause the Gentiles to believe, to induce faith. Yet, to further accommodate them, Jesus would call another Lazarus back from the dead. Instead of their being convinced by that demonstration, they began to consider how to put Jesus to death (John 11). After they had killed Jesus and he was proven to be the Son of God by his resurrection, the Jews still continued their rejection.

No other messenger would be sent. Jesus was the last prophet. The great chasm remains. The rich man cannot cross over. This is the last scene. Many modern disciples want to add another scene depicting the Jewish nation crossing that great gulf and being restored to favor as a nation. But the curtain falls!

Since beginning this essay, I have read of others who put forth a similar explanation going all the way back to Augustine and Gregory the Great. So I feel a bit less uneasy. Maybe Brad is smarter than I thought, his ancient mind enabling him to think like the ancients!

This approach to interpreting this parable does no violence to other teachings of the Scriptures, and it does eliminate puzzling questions which we raised earlier.

Now let me entice you further into this uncertain course of interpretation. Let us look backward in our context. The Jews had been enriched by the mammon of earthly blessings along with the enrichment of spiritual advantage. While grasping the earthly promises, they proved themselves unfaithful in little. They were not trustworthy of the much greater spiritual treasures (Luke 16:10-13).

You could more easily swallow a whale than this interpretation? Well, some do have mouths larger than their minds! You are still my beloved brother or sister even when we disagree. That’s what counts.

 1350 Huisache,
New Braunfels, TX 78130.