The Rich Man and Lazarus: What this teaches about the Afterlife
Certain Christian traditions maintain ghosts cannot possibly exist and utilize Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus (in Luke 16:19-31) to prove no communication is possible from those in the afterlife. Here the claim is made that communication between the dead and the living is impossible because the rich man [1] nor Lazarus, were not allowed to go back and speak to the rich man’s brothers about his torment. Add to that a shallow reading of Jesus’ remarks about not believing even if one returned from the dead, and you can quite easily see how the argument that none are allowed to return from the dead may arise.
Before we go further, we need to realise this is a story, Jesus’ intentions for the story are not about making any statement on the afterlife per sé, although the afterlife imagery within it is highly relevant and instructive for us. The Pharisees (in contrast to the Sadducees) believed in the afterlife and were very money-oriented, ignoring the poor. The point Jesus was making was about their attitude towards the poor in this life having implications for them in the afterlife [2]. The context includes the passages beforehand where Jesus has been pressing home the practice of good stewardship of our resources in this life. If Jesus was using imagery which was not truthful about the state of the intermediate afterlife at that point, his listeners would have pointed this out and his message would have lost credibility. That he spoke about the afterlife with strong warnings of the initial judgement that would befall them, using the characters of the rich man and Lazarus, leads us to know that Jesus meant every word in the warning. If there is no truth in his warning about the intermediate afterlife, then the sting in his message would be removed and his listeners able to dismiss his teaching as purely symbolic with no basis in reality.
This a parable, not a theological treatise on the afterlife and communications from there. That said, Jesus incorporates certain concepts about the afterlife in the story which were very familiar to the Second Temple Period (2TP) Jewish listeners. We shall explore these briefly in this article, and in more detail in a another article on Sheol (the underworld/afterlife). Also, in any parable, no actions are performed that are not possible for their protagonists and objects to perform – sowers sow seed in real life, mustard seeds grow into mustard plants. All the actors do what they can be expected to do in real situations (there are no flying people, or talking animals, for example).
We should also note that even if the story’s intention was not to describe the afterlife, the dead are consciously aware of their existence in this story. This lies in direct contrast to earlier, Old Testament passages such as Ecclesiastes 9:5, which is used as a proof-text by ‘soul sleep’ [3] advocates trimming the verse to focus on ‘the dead know nothing’. We have examined Ecclesiastes 9:5 in greater detail, but for now, we must remember that Ecclesiastes was written by a man who was writing in a fairly gloomy state of mind. He writes ‘life is meaningless’ (Ecc. 1:2), which could be used similarly as a proof-text to show that life is indeed meaningless. According to Christianity, this is an absurdity, which renders the Christian faith in life before death pointless. One cannot cherry-pick one passage to make a theology about the afterlife.
Note that the parable also assumes that
- the dead are able to communicate across the boundaries between different regions/states, even if they can’t cross unaided between them.
- the rich man believes that the righteous Lazarus was able to go to his brothers, which is in line with the beliefs that the dead were able to communicate the living, even if in this instance it is the righteous dead.
For the sake of this article, we shall assume that even though Jesus is teaching through a parable and his intention was not to describe the afterlife, certain features of the afterlife are spoken of as a matter of common belief. As such, we shall very briefly look at the beliefs about the afterlife that existed when Jesus told this story. If you wish to get a much more expansive and deeper exploration of the biblical afterlife and how it evolves from the earliest Hebraic understanding, through to the New Testament beliefs, then why not have a look at The Invisible Dimension: Spirit-Beings, Ghosts and the Afterlife?
A Very Brief Overview of the Afterlife in the Bible
Death in very early Hebraic understanding was considered the end of a worthy existence, and Sheol contained both the good and the bad. One was buried and went to the underworld, Sheol, to dwell in almost parallel existence with their ancestors, as the phrase “buried with their fathers” crops up many times. This belief is contemporaneous with surrounding cultures that believed in an active afterlife, and Jewish and non-Jewish burial artefacts show this as the case. Confusingly for many modern Christians, the dead were outside of the reach of God (who didn’t exist in Sheol), and thus it was believed that it was unsafe to communicate with the ancestors, This also helps explain the contemporary Levitical prohibitions on initiating contact with the dead for divinatory purposes which we find in various scriptures.
However, whilst there was an acceptance that the good and bad went to Sheol, there began to evolve an understanding that perhaps God could be present in Sheol after all (e.g. Psalm 139:7-8). Ecclesiastes 12:7 says that the spirit (of a dead person) returns to God, from whom it came, implying by that point that God would be with the dead, in Sheol.
During this time, the Hebrews established themselves amongst cultures where necromancy and divination via the dead were practised. At this point, the teaching regarding Sheol is that it is now a place of silence, where the dead are said to know nothing – a polemic stance against the cultures who claimed the dead actually did know something and information could be divined from them. It is verses from these times that are often disingenuously cherry-picked to formulate an argument against the dead being active and show a lack of understanding of the development of Hebraic understanding of the afterlife.
By the time of the Second Temple period (516 BC – 70AD), Jewish wars led to people wondering whether it was right and just that ‘righteous’, slain Jewish warriors ended up in the same place as those ‘unrighteous’ warriors of other nations. This led to a further evolution in the understanding of Sheol and the afterlife, where the concept of separation at death and a compartmentalised afterlife destination for all in Hades was developed [4].
According to the contemporary pseudepigraphical book of 1 Enoch 22 [5], good, righteous people went to one illuminated place, having a bright fountain of life. The remainder went to one of three other places, based on how they had lived and died in this life:
- those who had received no judgement in this life, enjoying it to the full at the expense of others, so were making amends until the final judgment,
- those who had had their life cut short by murder and were making pleas (Abel is exemplified here [6]), and
- those who had lived an evil life and revelled in it, aligning themselves with the forces of darkness.
Note that 1 En. 22:4 states clearly that there is an intermediate condition for the dead, and at the end, there will be a ‘final judgement’, an idea used elsewhere in the New Testament [7]. That the rich man refers to his five brothers who are alive (Lk. 16:28) also shows that what he is experiencing is not the eschatological ‘final judgement’. This intermediate condition or state shall be explored in another article on this site and may explain some of the paranormal phenomena we experience.
The notion of paradise and Abraham’s Bosom comes from this period. Leander et al comments: ‘The bosom of Abraham was regarded as the place of highest bliss. According to Jewish legends of the martyrdom of the mother and her seven sons (2 Maccabees 7), the martyrs were brought to the bosom of Abraham.’ [8] Abraham’s bosom would be the equivalent of the Enochic place of the bright fountain of life.
If you look at the Old Testament alone for an understanding of the afterlife, you get a skewed understanding, with sometimes contradictory views. Then, when you look at New Testament teaching, new concepts seem to appear out of thin air. Knowing how Hebraic afterlife understanding evolves from the very earliest ideas through the Exile period and beyond into the intertestamental period, we begin to understand the various contexts that allow us to know the basis from which Jesus was teaching and able to resolve these differences.
The Afterlife in this Story
At the point where the pair die, Lazarus is taken to one place, the rich man to another. Due to a common misunderstanding that modern Christians have regarding Hades, we’re often taught that Lazarus is in ‘heaven’ and the rich man is in ‘hell’ (only in the King James Version). This is definitely not what the text says. Lazarus was in what was called ‘Abraham’s Bosom’ or ‘the Vale of Abraham’; the rich man is in ‘Hades’. However, it should be remembered that Hades was where all the dead went (Rev. 20:13), meaning that Abraham’s Bosom would also be located in Hades as well! Remember, Hades is the Greek equivalent of Sheol, i.e. the afterlife realm of the dead.
Now, it seems from the text that the angels carry Lazarus immediately after he dies to the region of the blessed dead. However, this was not what mainstream Jews of the first century believed. They believed everyone went to Hades upon physical death. It was at that point the record books of their deeds were examined in the initial judgement (this idea is also seen in Daniel 7:10 and later in Revelation 20:12). If one was found in the “Book of the Living”, one was carried by angels across a boundary that separated the regions of Hades, as seen in the Apocalypse of Zephaniah chapters 8-9:
They [the angels] helped me [Zephaniah who had just been judged righteous] and set me on that boat. Thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads of angels gave praise before me. I, myself, put on an angelic garment. I saw all of those angels praying. I, myself, prayed together with them. I knew their language, which they spoke with me. Now, moreover, my sons, this is the trial because it is necessary that the good and the evil be weighed in a balance… Then a great angel came forth having a golden trumpet in his hand, and he blew it three times over my head, saying, “Be courageous! O one who hath triumphed. Prevail! O one who hath prevailed. For thou hast triumphed over the accuser, and thou hast escaped from the abyss and Hades. Thou wilt now cross over the crossing place. For thy name is written in the Book of the Living.” I wanted to embrace him, (but) I was unable to embrace the great angel because his glory is great. Then he ran to all the righteous ones, namely, Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and Enoch and Elijah and David. He spoke with them as friend to friend speaking one with another.
Apocalypse of Zephaniah 8-9
If this sounds like some Greek mythic underworld river crossing, it seems that rivers and crossing over them into promised lands are part of many Ancient Near Eastern afterlife beliefs. Psalm 23 describes the transition between life and death as passing through the “valley of the shadow of death” before being led to “still waters”. Even today we understand crossing the River Jordan as passing from life to death, as per the great Welsh hymn “Guide Me O Thou Great Jehovah”.
Jesus was mindful of his listeners’ previous knowledge about afterlife beliefs and the initial judgement, including the righteous being carried by the angels across the chasm/river, so he doesn’t have to mention Lazarus died, went to Hades, was initially judged righteous and was carried by the angels across the boundary between that place and Abraham’s Bosom / Vale. For the ancient biblical writer, Luke and his readers, it was common knowledge. However, for us 21st-century people, devoid of the knowledge of the topography of the afterlife in certain first-century Jewish beliefs, its absence can lead to confusion that no initial judgement was carried out first.
For those versed in 1 Enoch, It’s fairly easy to work out where Lazarus was. It was where the fountain of life was located. The clue comes from the rich man requesting Abraham to send Lazarus with a drop of water to quench his thirst (what did his last servant die of, eh?). Water is plentiful where Lazarus is – and is mentioned in 1 En. 22:2,9. Note that water in very hot climate countries symbolises life, whilst the desert symbolises death. This symbolism carries through in the minds and words of the biblical writers.
Luke gives clues about where the rich man resides: He dies, is buried and is in a place of torment. This lines up perfectly with one particular compartment of 1 Enoch 22. The “died and was buried” (Lk. 16v22) directly links to 1 En. 22:10: ‘And this [compartment] has been created for [the spirits of the] sinners when they die and are buried in the earth, and judgment has not been executed on them in their life.’ No mention is made of Lazarus being buried, and I believe it’s because of the distinction and destination that Jesus is making clear in their understanding of the Enochic compartments. Also, Lk 16:23,24 and 28 says that he’s in a place of torment, which 1 En. 22:11 states is the same compartment in the previous verse. Yet, Abraham still calls him “Child” (Lk. 16:25), he’s a fellow Jew! Is there some hope for him after his torment is completed at the ‘great day of judgement’ (1 En. 22:11)? Perhaps so… The word torment, Greek ‘basanois’, doesn’t just mean torture, it can also mean the touchstone where metals are tested for purity, linking in with such verses as 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 (“…If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire”).
The Great Chasm
Luke 16:26 is often the lynchpin verse of any argument that uses this passage to argue that the dead cannot communicate with the living. Let’s look at it in detail:
“Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.”
Where is this “great chasm” between? It is between the compartments containing Lazarus and the rich man, two of the four mentioned in 1 En. 22. It is not located between the living and the dead!!!
Jesus’ teaching suggests that communication between the various regions within the afterlife is possible – the rich man converses across the chasm with Abraham. However, travel between the two is not possible, apart from with the help of angelic assistance.
The nature of the conversation is interesting, for the end of the passage gives the context as one where the bodily resurrection of the dead is being discussed, not a ghostly apparition to return. The rich man does not ask for himself to be resurrected – perhaps he still sees Lazarus as subservient and could do that work for him [8]. His request is not for the ghost of Lazarus to pass on a message, but that Lazarus is resurrected to perform this task, subjecting Lazarus to the ordeal of dying again at a later stage, and ripping him out of his current paradise abode. It seems the rich man still had much to learn about treating other people whilst in the afterlife!
Also interesting is that the rich man believes that Lazarus was not bound to Paradise and could also appear to the living in this realm and pass on a message. Why did Jesus suggest this in the story? Jesus and the biblical writer could have squashed any potential misunderstandings by saying that Lazarus could not do this, but they don’t. We’re left with the impression that the departed may appear to the living in certain circumstances.
Neither does Abraham say that communication from the dead to the living was impossible, only that bodily resurrection to achieve this purpose was impossible. Yet, the very people to whom Jesus was speaking would be the ones who would orchestrate his crucifixion at a later stage and be flummoxed by his return from the dead.
Summary
This passage’s afterlife imagery feeds upon the Enochic teaching about compartmentalisation in the afterlife and other intertestamental literature. Jesus uses this imagery to make his point to the Pharisees, confirming at least two compartments in the afterlife (because there are only two actors within the story).
The rich man and Lazarus are in Sheol / Hades, but in separate compartments: Lazarus in the bright, well-watered place, the rich man in flaming torment, but his torment may not be forever. The rich man still had lessons to learn about how to treat the poor from his attitude towards Lazarus. The belief existed that passage from one region to another, across the chasm, was possible.
We also see that contrary to the suggestion of some Christian teachings, the biblical text teaches that the great chasm does not exist between the living and the dead but between sections within the afterlife.
The writer does not comment on the dead’s inability to communicate with the living, but they do suggest that contact between the living and the dead is possible if we read the text closely through their mindset and written words.
Some try to use this passage to deny a belief in after-death communication by suggesting it is only a parable, a story that doesn’t speak of the afterlife. Yet all parables are rooted in universal truths: seeds sown well will germinate, money invested wisely will gain more money, and lost items will be found if looked for intently. It is the same with this parable, which speaks of the afterlife clearly and is set within the Pharisees’ understanding of the afterlife. The story is a periscope into the afterlife and teaches how we behave in this life, which will affect our afterlife experience. This is the warning in Jesus’ teachings to the money-oriented Pharisees: why should they listen to him if their life here has no impact afterwards?
It is true that the main message of this story is not about the afterlife but about how wisely we use what we’ve been given in this life and how we treat the poorest. This is the main takeaway for not just us individually but also those who, like the Pharisees, are ‘Prosperity Gospel’ lovers of money (which is not good news to the poor with its basis: ‘You’re poor because you are not favoured by God’, UGH!!!). However, it does speak using the afterlife imagery and beliefs of the listeners at that time, and that’s what we should understand. We should not impose our pre-existing afterlife beliefs into the text and suggest that what the writer intended to convey isn’t what we want it to mean.
Bibliography
Charlesworth, J. H. (Ed.) (1983), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Volume 1, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, New York, Doubleday & Co.
Felton, D. (1998) Haunted Greece and Rome: Ghost Stories from Classical Antiquity. Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.
Leander, E. K. et al (1995) The New Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX: Luke, John, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Nickelsberg, G. W. E., VanderKam, J. C. (2012), 1 Enoch: The Hermeneia Translation, Minneapolis: Augsberg Fortress.
Ombres, R. (1978) Theology Today Series No. 24: Theology of Purgatory, Dublin: Mercier Press.
Schreiner, T. R. (1990) ‘Luke’ in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, Grand Rapids, Mi: Baker Book House, pp. 799-839.
Footnotes
[1] Called ‘Dives’ in Latin.
[2] Leander et al (2007:319), Schreiner (1990:829).
[3] We examine the concept of ‘soul sleep’ in an article on this site.
[4] Ombres, 19.
[5] Nickelsberg & VanderKam, XX. Just because a book is classed as pseudepigraphical and non-canonical, does not mean it has nothing to say on theological issues. Millions of theological books have been written for the aid of the Church, but are not considered canonical. The Ethiopian Church has always considered 1 Enoch as part of their canon of Scripture. Jude and Peter explicitly reference the book of 1 Enoch, and a Google search on how many times 1 Enoch is referenced in the New Testament brings up much food for thought. It was disallowed in the Western Canon primarily by church fathers like Jerome, who offered the Church the choice between 1 Enoch or Revelation to be included in the Canon, but not both. Noteworthy is that the library of the Essenes held four copies of the book, so it was obviously worth their theological training.
[6] Abel is called ‘righteous’ in Mt. 23:35 and He. 11:4. It appears that some of the compartments therefore had a mix of ‘righteous’ and ‘unrighteous’ based upon their attitude in life and circumstances of death. This ties in with Greek ideas of the biaiothanatoi – those who had met with violent deaths and were classed as a type of ghost by Tertullian (Felton, 25). By the time you get to John of Patmos writing the book of Revelation, he witnesses in his vision a place where the goodly martyrs are held – under the altar (6:9). Later parts of the New Testament retain the idea of compartments in the afterlife, even for the righteous.
[7] Mt. 12:41,42; Lk. 10:14, 11:31,32; Act. 24:25; Heb. 9:27,28; Rev. 20:11-13
[8] Leander et al, 317.
