the parable of the rich man in hell

 I remember the feeling of sheer terror as a child hearing this parable being preached from the pulpit by my great-grandfather. As he thundered about the way in which the high temperatures of Hell were nearly unbearable for the rich man, he also pled to us to receive Christ as savior so that we would not have to go there when we died. He was a good man with good intentions. His heart was full of compassion. His life outside of church proved that beyond question. 

I respectfully disagree with him about this story.

Bible study has now become a life-long pursuit and profession. My primary goal about the issue of Hell or any other major topic from Scripture is to know the truth. I want to be accurate in my understanding of biblical topics as well as accurate in my teaching, preaching, and writing on these topics. I have prayed for discernment as a regularly throughout my adult life. 

Having said all of this, I will go on record as saying that I could be wrong about many of my conclusions. But if I am wrong, it will not be for lack of prayer, proper research, or because I just want to create my own truth. I believe the Bible to the core. I believe that I will answer to God for how faithfully I handled His Word. I do not want any part in disseminating false doctrine or teaching. With that introduction to form a context for what I am about to write, I proceed.

The question at hand is in the title of this article. The title implies that I do believe it is a parable and not an actual story. Nonetheless, every parable has at least one important lesson or spiritual truth. Therefore, with respect for God and His Word, I will share why I believe this passage to be a parable as well as some important lessons for us today.

The story certainly begins like a lot of Jesus’ other parables. To compare, notice the beginning of Luke 18:1-3 which reads, “In a certain city there was a judge…and there was a widow in that city.” The passage about the rich man in Luke 16 begins similarly: “There was a certain rich man… there was a certain beggar.”

What sets this apart from other parables is that several names are mentioned, including one of the two main characters: the poor man named Lazarus. There is no rule about parables not having names mentioned. Other fictional stories with a moral point from the ancient world would use names of people. It is the fact that Jesus wasn’t in the habit of doing this with his other parables that are recorded in the gospels that raises some eyebrows.

Rather than making too much of Lazarus’ name at this point, I do see support for the use of a name when we take a step back and look at the big picture of what is happening. Lazarus was a very poor and sick man. He was a beggar. He laid near the gate of the rich man’s estate just hoping for some “crumbs from his table.” Jesus repeatedly taught principles like “the last will be first” and “the first will be last.” The personal name for this poor man would have been completely unimportant in his life before he died to most of the people who regularly witnessed him begging. Jesus knew his name. Not only did Jesus know his name, but He had better things in store for him in the next life. 

The rich man was comfortable, clothed in the finest clothes, ate the best foods, and enjoyed his earthly existence all while ignoring the needs of those around him. A man of his stature could have easily done something to make Lazarus’ life more tolerable. He could have given him food, helped him get medical attention, and even possibly given him an opportunity as a servant. In contrast to Lazarus, we are not given the rich man's name, even though in his community, everyone would have known him. His stature and notoriety do not matter once he passes on to the other side.

Is it too much to point out that the only mercy we see Lazarus getting in his life before death was from dogs that were licking his sores? The terms “dogs” is often used in the New Testament as a derogatory term to describe Gentiles.

It is worth mentioning that the setting for this story after they both die is “Hades,” not “Gehenna.” Gehenna is the term that Jesus used for Hell. Hades was a Greek term similar to Sheol in the Old Testament. It was the place of the dead for both saints as well as sinners. There is no place anywhere else in Scripture that portrays Hades the way this story does. However, there are ample examples in Greek literature of a place of conscious torment. It would have been a somewhat familiar idea to the Greek dominated culture of the time to hear such a setting for this story. What would have been more shocking and disturbing to the Pharisees was the way in which the fates of the rich man and the poor man were flipped after they died.

Every Jew listening to it would recognize the term "Hades" for what it was. He was painting a picture of two great contrasts—one before death and one after death. The Greek concept of Hades would have influenced the Jews by this point in history; however, Jesus could simply be limiting this to the Hebrew concept of Sheol--the general place where all the dead went.  Either way, the two compartments are key--one is a place of torment and the other a place of peace. 

My, how the tables have turned! The rich man has become the beggar. He has no interest in crumbs from the table; he just pleads with Abraham for a drop of water. Just as he denied Lazarus on earth, he is denied in Hades. 

It is interesting how the rich man appeals to Abraham for help. He even calls him “Father Abraham.” He is appealing to his lineage for help here. Again, he doesn’t get any help or mercy. Meanwhile the poor man is being comforted on the other side of Hades. 

Hades is pictured here as a place divided by a great chasm. However, the chasm isn’t so great that the rich man cannot yell across loud enough to have a conversation with Abraham. And although he is burning in flames, he is still able to converse. Does this have the feel of an actual event? Or is there a deeper truth that Jesus is trying to make that too many Christians have missed by putting too much emphasis on the fire itself?

How could Abraham or the poor man live in comfort while witnessing the agony of their neighbors (with whom they are apparently close enough to see and converse)? Also, if this was a literally true event, there should have been countless people on both sides of the chasm, making a literal conversation all the more difficult. The logical problems begin to really mount the more we look at the details of the story, that is, if we believe it to be a literally true story. However, if we accept the story as a parable with literally true applications, we can learn much.

There is another problem I encountered when trying to envision this as a literally true event. Those who believe in a literal Hell with actual flames of fire and bodies that are specially created by God to feel pain throughout the eons of eternity, those same people have taught that in Hell, there is the absence of all that is good. God is not there (even though He is omnipresent). If God is there, He somehow withdraws His presence in such a way that there is no goodness. There is no fruit of the Spirit. There is no love, joy, or peace. There is no hope. There is nothing positive. Yet, in this parable, the rich man seems to have hope that someone might come to his aid with water. He also has a sincere evangelical fervor. He desires to see his brothers saved from this plight. The rich man has a selfless concern to see people that he loves/loved avoid the same judgment that came down on him. 

One profound point that could is that while it was within the power of the rich man to do some good in the world and to show compassion, he does not. Once we die, those opportunities will be gone.

In fact, if this is a true story, it seems that the rich man is improving on a certain level. Instead of focused on his riches and power, he is now concerned about the affairs of people on earth who might still avoid this treacherous place. If he is improving…if there is room in Hell for the compassion of others, then Hell seems more like the traditional view of purgatory. If the Luke 16 story is true history, and it is a place of repentance (or at least regret) and compassion, then there might be hope to get out. I am not trying to make a case for purgatory. I just don’t see this parable harmonizing with other teachings on Hell in the Bible. Viewing this story as a parable does not negate other teachings about Hell in the Bible, but it may keep us from misunderstanding other teachings.

If we take a step back even further, we get a picture of the context within the gospel of Luke. There is a series of several parables that are given before this story. The parable just before this passage is also about a rich man. Right between that parable and the one pertaining to our present focus is the statement, “The Pharisees, who dearly loved their money, heard all this and scoffed at him.” Jesus responded, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God" (Luke 16:14, 15).

The rich man wanted to reach out and warn his brothers of this place. He is denied his request and given the answer, that if they did not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither would they listen or obey if someone rose from the dead to warn them. There seems to be a foreshadowing here of Jesus’ own resurrection. 

It isn’t lack of sufficient evidence that keeps people like the Pharisees from accepting the gospel. Jesus performed miracles in front of them. They outright rejected him anyway. Rather than deny His miracles, they would accuse Jesus of performing miracles with the power of the devil or that He was breaking the Sabbath. Clearly this message, this story, was intended for the Pharisees and those throughout history that deny or reject Jesus despite having access to the truth that points to Him. 

When Jesus taught, He often taught using parables. Every Bible college and seminary student is taught that a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. The reference to “earthly” just means that the terms and characters and details of the story are familiar enough to listeners and readers that they do not need explanations. It does not mean that every detail of the story has an earthly parallel. People are not sheep and goats any more than they are wheat and chaff. 

The heavenly meaning or spiritual application is the real point of these parables. We should not get so bogged down with the packaging of these stories that we miss out on the important contents. As we unwrap the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, we see several applications:

1. The rich may have better standing and greater comfort on earth during their lives, but that elevated standing does not necessarily follow them beyond the grave.

2. The poor of this earth may find themselves in a better standing on the other side. This is consistent with what Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere in the gospels (the first shall be last and the last shall be first). It is not their poverty that saves them, but their humbled position makes it easier for them to see their true spiritual needs and look to Christ for forgiveness. 

3. There may come a time in the future that we may experience regret. The time to act is now, not later, when we cannot do anything about it.

4. We should show compassion and generosity to those in need now while we can.

5. Those who reject God’s grace, usually do so because of their willful rejection, not because of lack of evidence.

In conclusion, I believe that there is sufficient evidence to see this story as a parable. That does not minimize the message. In fact, if we see the story in the correct literary light, we are free to really focus on the depth of meaning and application that was clearly intended, rather than getting distracted by surface details like smoke and fire. So, why does Jesus use the name “Lazarus” in the story? We do not know for sure. 

Perhaps there was a real beggar in that community named “Lazarus” that the Pharisees knew. Every community has at least one poor beggar or person with health problems or other issues that set them back. Even if he didn’t refer to an actual person that the Pharisees knew, Jesus may have used a real name to show that from God’s vantage point, this poor man had value. He had a name. God knows the name and much more, of every person that is poor, homeless, ill, abused, ridiculed, or ignored by most of humanity.

Lazarus was a fairly common name in the Old Testament, often in the form of Eleazar. This name from which Lazarus is derived means "God has helped" in the Hebrew. We know that in this story, God helps the poor man even though he was ignored by the unnamed rich man whose fate was damnation.