(17 votes, average: 4.71 out of 5)
Loading...I’ve been thinking a good bit about the problem of wealth in the teachings of Jesus. Among the passages that are obviously relevant is the famous parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. I talked about the story in my book Heaven and Hell (Simon and Schuster, 2020). The following is a revised version of what I say there.
The story appears in Luke 16:19-31 in the context of a number of parables and other sayings of Jesus. In the parable Jesus contrasts the life and afterlife of an anonymous rich man and a destitute beggar named Lazarus. The wealthy many is dressed in fine clothes and enjoys sumptuous meals every day. Lazarus lies outside his gate, starving, desperate even to get the scraps off the rich man’s table. The scene is pathetic: dogs come up and lick Lazarus’s wounds.
Both men die at about the same time. Lazarus is
Members of the blog get five posts a week in exchange for a small membership fee — every penny of which goes to charity. So why not join? Click here for membership options
The Didache also holds to this assumption that wealth is evil or the product of evil. As did the Ebionites in my view. And James the Just is described as an extreme ascetic, implying that this made him a holy person. Likely, Jesus held to the same values.
John Lightfoot (1602–1675) treated the parable as a parody of Pharisee belief concerning the Bosom of Abraham, and from the connection of Abraham saying the rich man’s family would not believe even if the parable Lazarus was raised, to the priests’ failure to believe in the resurrection of Christ:
“Anyone may see, how Christ points at the infidelity of the Jews, even after that himself shall have risen again. From whence it is easy to judge what was the design and intention of this parable.” (From the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 3)
It doesn’t seem likely that the historical Jesus would ever have told such a parable. For one thing, would Jesus, as a Devout Jew of his time and place, have imagined that sort of afterlife? And if we take Jesus as co-eternal with another “person” of the Trinity, wouldn’t Jesus have known precisely what an afterlife would offer, and not offer a parable, but tell a real story about real people, since, being God, he’d know all about such things? This seems to be one more example of squeaky hinges and shaky logic in a gospel story. It seems more likely that the author who produced the gospel later attributed to Luke used his or her imagination to create a fictional account of Jesus producing a fictional account in parable form, to make a point dear to the heart of the unknown person who actually wrote the gospel.
Professor Ehrman,
I’ve heard it said that parables don’t give names to the characters, so this account must be understood as historical narrative. Is there any validity to that assertion?
It’s unusual, to be sure. But there’s no precise rules about what gets to count as a parable, and this definitely is one!
For those who say this is a depiction of hell I would point out the story clearly takes place before the judgment, at which time the unrighteous will be incinerated (destroyed). But, this story still seems at odds with Jesus’s teachings about judgment (e.g. weeds thrown in a fire). Do you think this parable really goes back to Jesus?
Nope. The ending is a give away: these people won’t believe evein if a man *is* raised from the dead! This is a Xn story.
I have read from non-canonical sources the rich man discussed in an earlier blog from Mark 10 was Lazarus. Again, I don’t think Jesus is referring to money as the determinant of what qualifies someone as rich. Personally, I think it’s understanding and knowledge of the Bible.
If we look close enough at this parable we can insert the Son of man into all 3 characters in this parable. Also, key here is knowing where the gate is and what that represents, who are the dogs and we can’t forget about those nasty sores they pop up again in Revalations.
This may be way off track but the water on the tip of the finger and touch of the tongue makes me think of Exodus 29. The priest would dip his finger in the blood of the bullock and touch the horns of the altar.
What does it mean to be “poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3)? It seems Matthew was uncomfortable with Luke’s straightforward, “Blessed are the poor.”
I think it means to be humble. And yup, it’s a big change from what we find in Luke. So too: blessed are those who hunger and thirst “for righteousness” as opposed to those who hunger and thirst!
I have both JTH&H and H&H but haven’t got to them yet because I’m in the middle of a move. I know you’re busy so If you deal with my question in them just let me know.
In this parable Paradise seems rather embodied since there is at least the possibility that the rich man could be comforted with a drink of water. However later on when Luke has Jesus tell the thief that “today you will be with me in Paradise” presumably he does not mean they will go to Paradise in the body since Jesus and the thief will remain on the cross after they die. Paul famously goes to Paradise but doesn’t know whether he was in the body or not.
So, where is Paradise? Is it to be understood as a hidden place on Earth or existing on some level in the Heavens or on some other mystical plain of existence perhaps? Is there even any kind of consistent cosmological view among these ancient writers?
Thanks
It appears to be up in heaven (since that’s where Lazarus is, with the patriarchs “above”)
What do you think about the passages on communal living in early Christian communities. For example in Acts 5, when Ananias and his wife are struck dead (always stunned that God is still just killing people instantly here) because they sell property and hide some of the profits from the sale, giving only a portion to their local christian community.
Do you think sharing pretty much everything with your Christian community was requirement of being a follower of Jesus at this early stage? If so, when did that stop? Was that happening in Paul’s church?
The only record we have of this kind of communal existence is in Acts; neither Paul nor anyone else says anything about it (and it doesn’t seem true for long even in Acts; later we hear about a church gathering at the house of Mark’s mother! She obviously didn’t sell it….). Acts tries to show the great unity of the church in the early period, and this story about sharing everythign supports it. But I don’t think it actually really happened.
Dr. Ehrman. Yes, Lazarus did not return to life in this parable, but Lazarus was resurrected in the Gospel of John.
There is a striking parallel between Sarah, in Genesis, and the Shunammite woman in 2 kings 4. Both received a sacred message that they would give birth to a son one year later. Sarah received the message from an angel of God while the Shunammite woman received the message from Elisha.
Elisha first gave life to her son, and later he resurrected him. Elisha did both! Elisha raised up the same man he had previously created!
Thus, Elisha was both «the Resurrection AND the Life.» John 11:25
Elisha was, in this event, God himself incarnated both as the creator of Life AND as the sustainer of Life.
This was what Jesus was trying to make Martha understand.
The Shunammite woman knew that Elisha was a holy man of God.
2 Kings 4:9 «Behold, now I know that this man (…) is a holy man of God.»
John 11:22 «now I know that, whatsoever Thou shalt ask of God, God will give Thee.»
The Shunammite woman didn’t know that Elisha was equal in power with the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.
The Shunammite woman did not know that Elisha could perform the same miracles that the Lord had previously done for Sarah and Isaac.
To emphasize the connection between these two stories, the evangelist lets Thomas / Isaac say:
John 11:16 «Let us also go, that we may die with him.»
Martha is synonymous with the Shunammite woman who searched for Elisha when her son died, but was actually more concerned with her daily struggles.
2 Kings 4:13 Elisha: «Behold, thou hast taken all this trouble for us; what shall I do for thee?» (…) «And she said, I dwell in the midst of my people.»
Making Martha like the Jewish synagogue, more concerned with everyday life than with salvation. The resemblance also made Martha a type of Sarah.
John 11:26 «He that believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.»
Abraham was justified by Faith, the same Faith that kept Isaac from dying. Was Martha’s faith as strong as Abraham’s faith?
Luke 10:41 «Martha, Martha, you are worried and upset about many things.»
Genesis 22:11 «Abraham, Abraham!” “Here I am,” he replied.»
Jesus now leads Martha toward a faith as strong as the one Abraham had shown.
The Shunammite woman had a sister in the widow from Zarephath – Martha and Mary.
The widow of Zarephath was very poor. She and her son were almost completely free of food. Despite having only one meal left, the Man of God asked her to serve him first, even before her hungry son.
John 12: 8 «The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have Me.»
1 Kings 17:11 «Bring me a morsel of bread in your hand.»
John 12: 3 «Mary therefore took a pound of expensive ointment made from pure nard»
The widow of Zarephath had hidden the last piece of bread until the day she and her son were to die, but now she voluntarily shared her piece with the Man of God.
By this deed, the widow of Zarephath put the love of God above charity. This action was so virtuous that the whole house was filled with the sweet scent of this deed. A reference to the bride in the Song of Songs.
From that day on, the flour jar and the oil jug were never empty.
Luke 10:42 «Mary has chosen the good portion, and it will not be taken away from her.»
The widow of Zarephath was a type of the Gentile Church, who had only her equal in Rebekah, who once anointed Jacob.
Her poor son, who some traditions said was Jonah, lived in the time of King Ahab, at a time when there was no rain or dew on the earth. No wonder the rich man was thirsty.
Jonah was not a saint either. Jonah fled and hid from the Lord, as Adam had done in the Garden of Eden.
John 11:34 «Where have you laid him?»
On the first day, Jonah hid himself in the boat while he slept. The next three days in the belly of the fish. First he slept, then he was dead, locked inside the gates of hell. A total of four days.
But Jonah repented the first day in the belly of the fish, which was his second day on the run from God. Jonah’s prayer ascended to the Lord on day two, and then the Lord heard his prayer.
The Lord commanded the fish to cast Jonah on dry land – He commanded hell to open its gate and release Jonah.
John 11:44 «Take off the grave clothes and let him go!»
Hair was a central ingredient in the anointing of Jesus, along with the smell and the oil. This was not without reason.
Rebekah made Jacob unrecognizable to Isaac. With a hairy disguise and with the smell of Esau, Isaac was tricked into giving Jacob the blessing instead of Esau.
The widow of Zarephath brought the oil that Elijah had blessed.
The widow of Zarephath anointed Jesus’ feet because she showed humility to the man of God, and was blessed with oil in return.
Rebekah, the woman with the alabaster jar, anointed Jesus’ head because she was the architect behind Jacob’s blessing.
In addition, there are some hints to the bride in the Son of Songs.
Song of Songs 6:5 «Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from Gilead.»
Song of Songs 1:12 «While the king sitteth at his table, my spikenard sendeth forth the smell thereof.»
The stone that covered the cave is also a reference to the deep connection between the stories.
Rebekah sent Jacob away to the Gentiles. When Jacob arrived, a large rock covered the well. Jacob wept when he met Rachel who was herding her father’s sheep, and he loved her deeply.
John 11:35-36 «Jesus wept. Then the Jews said, “See how He loved him!”»
Jacob removed the stone so that the Gentiles could drink of the water of life.
The Gentiles who had previously lived in darkness, under the stone, had now come to light.
When the fish spit Jonah ashore, after his resurrection, the message of the Lord’s grace and salvation was spread to the Gentiles at Nineveh.
But according to the Christians, the Jews did not understand the message of both Jacob and Jonah, and made a conspiracy to kill them with the help of Judas / Esau / Gehazi.
The theological significance of the rich man asking Abraham to send Lazarus to his father’s house was that in the story of Jonah, Jonah was only sent to the Gentiles. The rich man’s argument was that if Jonah had also been sent to the Jews, they would have repented as well.
Lazarus was bound hand and foot in the tomb, which showed the parallel between Jonah’s resurrection and Isaac’s resurrection. In fact, Lazarus’ finger was Isaac’s finger examining Jacob’s hairy garment. The same finger that Doubting Thomas examined Jesus with.
Jacob had six sons with Leah who were involved in Joseph’s landing in Egypt. Levi was the ancestor of the Jewish priesthood, while Judah was the ancestor of the Jewish kings.
One of these two patriarchs could theologically be said to have to answer on behalf of his tribe before Abraham. Ie. Levi and his five brothers, or Judah and his five brothers. Maybe it was Judah who had to answer Abraham on behalf of King Ahab?
In the Gospel of Nicodemus, there is a conversation between Satan and Hades about Lazarus:
«For I not long ago swallowed down one dead, Lazarus by name; and not long after, one of the living by a single word dragged him up by force out of my bowels: and I think that it was he of whom you speak. If, therefore, we receive him here, I am afraid lest perchance we be in danger even about the rest. For, lo, all those that I have swallowed from eternity I perceive to be in commotion, and I am pained in my belly. And the snatching away of Lazarus beforehand seems to me to be no good sign: for not like a dead body, but like an eagle, he flew out of me; for so suddenly did the earth throw him out.»
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/08072a.htm
Yes, my new book (Journey’s to Heaven and Hell) devotes a chapter to the Descent narrative of the Gospel of Nicodemus. Intriguing stuff!
Why don’t you favor the interpretation that this parable is actually about how rich people who refuse to hep the poor (rather than all rich people) will get punished? The parable makes a point of telling us that Lazarus is at the rich man’s “gate,” so it seems that the Jesus (or Luke) considers it important for the reader to understand that the rich man is aware of Lazarus’s suffering.
Maybe Lazarus didn’t do anything special to earn the trip to Abraham’s bosom. Maybe he didn’t get that reward for being poor. Maybe all decent people can except to go to Abraham’s bosom. It’s not a reward; it’s the default. But if you are not a decent person–e.g., if you are aware of your neighbor’s suffering, and you are in a position to help them, but you refuse to do so–then you can expect to be punished severely.
Why isn’t this interpretation more likely than the one you proposed?
That’s the interpretatoin I’ve normally had — and it does make sense. I don’t reject it (as you suggest); I just point out that f that *is* what it’s about it seems a bit weird that the only thing it says about Lazarus is that he’s dirt poor. There’s nothing about his ethical behavior, religious views, or way of life at all. He’s poor. He goes to heaven. It appears to be about poverty. So too with Luke’s beatitudes: unlike Matthew, in Luke we’re told that Jesus said “Blessed are the poor” (not: “in spirit”) AND “woe to you who are rich.” Even thought it seems wird and implausible, it maybe Luke’s view. Poor people are rewarded for being poor.
Hi Bart,
Luke 16:26
26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
I too believe there is a great distance between here and there.
I never thought of this story as being about wealth but rather about one’s interactions with one’s fellowman. Being rich, the means existed to easily help Lazarus but the rich man was unable to care about him. The idea of selling everything and giving it to the poor, or giving one’s shirt to someone who stole one’s coat, or not asking for something back that was not returned are simply about loving nothing more than one loves one’s fellowman. Not helping someone every time one saw their need and were able to help is the sin each one of us should focus on. As the saying goes: every little bit helps.
Dennis
While the story in a parable is not historical, it is true to life, uses realistic situations, and is not a fairy tale. So I’d argue that the depiction of the afterlife in this parable is consistent with what the author of Luke believed. The author would not have used a depiction of afterlife punishment that was unreal any more than he would have pigs perching in the branches of the grown mustard plant in the Parable of the Mustard Seed, or snakes eating the seed fallen along the path in the Parable of the Sower. Thoughts?
Yes, I agree: it’s the view of the afterlife that the author believed (at least to some extent) — that after life there would be rewards and punishments. This kind of story of the afterlife is told time and time again among ancient people who are making a point, not in order to give literal descriptions of realities. Read, for example, Plato’s myth of Er or Virgil’s account in Aeneid 6, and you’ll see. It’s a standard trope and has to be considered in light of its broader context. (Even with the sower, though, there is obvious non-literal claims; no seed can produce 100 plants!)
Agreed Luke 16 offers no proof of the Christian understanding of either heaven or hell. It seems to be an ironic reference to the false Jewish belief (Jewish Encyclopaedia: “Abraham’s bosom”). That the Jesus of Luke’s gospel did not believe that fable is made abundantly clear four chapters later.
Of all the chapters in the gospels Luke 20 is probably the last one to go to argue that Jesus couldn’t handle an argument. And in Luke 20:37-40 Jesus argued that God was the God of the living not of the dead, and since God was the God of Abraham (quoting Moses Exod 3:15) then that proved – the resurrection.
If Abraham had an immortal soul and was alive and well in paradise, why should that offer any proof of the resurrection?
But if Abraham was dead in the dust of the earth (Dan 12:2) awaiting the promise with the rest of the faithful (Heb 11:39-40), the resurrection would be essential to effect this and therefore is indeed proved.
Therefore the Rich Man and Lazarus must be a parable.
I don’t see a problem with Luke’s rendition. I think AndySeattle makes a good point, but I’d like to take it further. Often times, Jesus spoke of those who like to adorn themselves in fines clothes to illustrate their status and others who wear purple robes. In either case, he is stabbing at the Pharisees. They enjoy raking in the tithes and live in luxury. He also taught that the way to life can be found in the Laws, to which at the time, were completely derailed. And he said, it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, then it would for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, after a rich man asked him what he must do to gain eternal life. It can even be related to ‘The Good Samaritan’. Though he used a priest and a Levite as two that had no concern for the man, both should be well aware of the Laws, which includes, ‘Love thy neighbor’. Don’t you agree, that Luke’s story ties in with most of Jesus’ teachings, even if it be merely a moral point?
I think it certainly accords with his views of wealth and the need to love one’s neighbor. It simply does not accord with his understanding of the afterlife.
My path into my biblical understanding has increasingly given me a view of a message of inner human self-transcendence. This is in my mind within my paradim, the book of Revelation is a pattern, a symbolic description of this very human self-transcendence.
This rich mans torment in Luke is for me considered in the same context as that found in a few chapters of Revelation where the torment in fire is a symbol of cleansing, a cleansing and transmuting forces. So this “rich man” is a symbol of our own “Selfs” path, and establishes a material, carnally oriented mind in which we build our concepts, images, thought patterns and make it the center of our self and this world, a state that must fall, that must go.
Objectively, wealth at all levels is a relative concept, so I do not think that wealth itself is the problem. The problems occure when this earthly, carnal wealth and greed become the center we orient ourselves towards.
Within this concept I can understand Luke’s parable about Lazarus and the rich man and what it tries to convey