The Replacement Theology of Lazarus and the Rich Man

by Virgil Vaduva

Since I previously wrote an article on Judas and his corporate representation of Israel (Judah) rejecting and betraying Christ, I want to add another article to the list and show how the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is illustrative of something much more important than perhaps even many of us Preterists first thought.

It is ironic how often we emphasize context and how much we enjoy studying and knowing the inner workings of the social, cultural and theological aspects of the Scripture but then we sometimes fail at grasping the enormity and meaning of certain passages. I believe this is mostly due to the cultural and historical separation we experience today; too often we read the words of Jesus as if they were said to us. That is when we miss the mark. And if missing the mark is not enough, many of us attempt to force our understanding of Christ's words on others. So let us reason together and perhaps benefit together from this article.

 

One evening a year or so ago, during a phone conversation, someone shared with me his perspective on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. It was perplexing and fascinating, but until recently I did not have a chance to delve deeper into this passage and analyze his perspective, and to my pleasant surprise, digging deeper into Judaism and Jewish culture brought to light many riches.

 

I often used the parable myself to illustrate what the structure of Hades was, but it occurred to me that perhaps focusing on Hades alone misses the whole point of the parable. Perhaps the story is not about real people experiencing real events, or not even Hades at all. Perhaps, as He often did, Jesus created a story to illustrate something more important, and something relevant to the immediate audience; something they immediately understood and they were familiar with.

 

Who is The Rich Man?

 

Luke 16:19-31 is the only place where this parable is mentioned in the Bible. There are several key issues to be pointed out in the text. The first thing to be noted (which is not that obvious) is the spiritual state of the rich man and Lazarus. Because we are told where they each end up, we often assume that the rich man was an evil man and Lazarus was a good man. The problem is that the text says no such thing! The matter-of-fact presentation is simple: two men, one rich and one poor die; the rich ends up in a place of torment while the poor ends up in a place of comfort.

 

We only see one slightly possible misdeed of the rich man: he was "habitually dressing in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day." But if doing these things is deserving of hellish punishment, then we are all in big trouble; most Christian living in Western countries are well dressed, eat too much and quite wealthy compared to others living in Africa for example. Furthermore we are surprisingly not being told why the rich man ends up in torment. This is unusual at first glance, but the fact that the reason is not mentioned is likely because it may not be important. So the focus of the story is not on the mechanics of Hades, but on the two characters: Lazarus and the rich man.

 

Amazingly (and sadly) many commentaries miss the point altogether. My Albert Barnes commentary on Luke 16 seems to teach that rich people have a greater chance of going to hell than the poor: "Accordingly, he speaks of no great fault in the rich man – no external, degrading vice – no open breach of the law; and leaves us to infer that the mere possession of the wealth may be dangerous to the soul, and that a man surrounded with every temporal blessing may perish forever." (Albert Barnes, The Gospels, page 114) In fact, the Barnes commentary even quoted an old hymn which reeks of social warfare and ill-wishes for the rich:

 

How vain are riches to secure

Their haughty owners from the grave

On slippery rocks I see them stand,
And fiery billows roll below.

Now let them boast how tall they rise,
I’ll never envy them again;
There they may stand with haughty eyes,
Till they plunge deep in endless pain.

Their fancied joys how fast they flee!
Like dreams, as fleeting and as vain;
Their songs of softest harmony
Are but a prelude to their pain.

Now I esteem their mirth and wine
Too dear to purchase with my blood:
Lord, ‘tis enough that thou art mine—
My life, my portion, and my God.

 

-- Albert Barnes, The Gospels, Page 118

 

Evidently, it appears that many believers seem to understand the Luke 16 passage in the light of the following paradigm: if you are well-off in this life, you will get your endless pain later; if you are bad-off in this life and you suffer enough, you will eventually be better off. Surprisingly this also seemed to be the case among at least some of the Talmudic scholars. In Everyman's Talmud we read, "R. Judah the Prince said, Whoever accepts the delights of this world will be deprived of the delights of the World to Come, and whoever declines the delights of this world will receive the delights of the World to Come." (Abraham Cohen, Everyman's Talmud, Page 365)

 

In my opinion, most, if not all theologians out there are focusing on the wrong aspect of the story, namely that this is a parable used by Jesus to teach what happens after one dies. Again, to me, the two individuals, Lazarus and the rich man appear to be the focus of the story. And since the two individuals seem to be the focus of the story, we should analyze them in an effort to identify them. First, Preterism regularly points out how the color purple symbolizes Israel. The ephod, which was the apron-like piece of clothing worn by the High Priest was made out of fine linen and colored in purple, scarlet, blue and white. Josephus described the clothing and color in detail in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 3, Chapter 7; Exodus 28 also describes the entire High Priest outfit in detail. Purple, scarlet and blue are the striking colors throughout the High Priest outfit and also on the veil separating the holy place from the holy of holies and the doors to the sanctuary and the outer court.

 

The rich man was therefore wearing clothing similar to that of the High Priest and was enjoying "daily splendor" much in the way Israel did in the Temple through its relationship with God.

 

There is also another thing that caught my attention in the text. While being in torment in Hades, the rich man lifts up his eyes and sees Abraham. In verse 24, he calls out to Abraham saying "Father Abraham, have mercy on me..." It is not uncommon even today for Jews to refer to Abraham as Avraham Avinu which translates to Abraham our Father, so only a descendent of Abraham would have called Abraham "father." Not only that, but Abraham calls him "child" and responds to him: "Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony." (Verse 25)

 

Lastly, there is something else in the text that would have been very striking and obvious to a first-century Jewish audience. We know from Luke 16 that the rich man, while in agony in Hades is greatly concerned, not for himself, but for the welfare of his brothers. Specifically he tells Abraham "Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment." (Luke 16:27,28) While at first glance this statement may mean nothing to an American reader for example, we must always remember that Christ was addressing educated people, most likely people who had the entire Jewish scriptures memorized. Fortunately, these Jewish scriptures hold the key to unlocking that passage.

 

In Genesis 35:22,23 we read a rather obscure genealogical statement that helps us in this investigation: "...the sons of Leah: Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, then Simeon and Levi and Judah and Issachar and Zebulun." Evidently, Jacob had twelve sons, of which six were born by Leah. Judah therefore had five brothers, a well-known fact among the Jews, confirmed again by Leah’s own statement in Genesis 30: "God has endowed me with a good gift; now my husband will dwell with me, because I have borne him six sons." (Verse 20)

 

Quite clearly therefore, the rich man with five brothers described in the parable is none other than Judah, to whom (generally speaking) the priesthood, the Law and the Prophets were entrusted, so being a poor steward seems to be the fault of the rich man.

 

Who is Lazarus?

 

Now when we consider Lazarus and try to understand him, we know a few things about him that I believe are relevant to this article:

 

1. His name is Lazarus.
2. He is outside the rich man’s gate.
3. Longing to be fed from the rich man’s table.
4. He is hanging out with and is being comforted by dogs.
5. He is carried away by angels after death.

 

The name is of key importance here. Besides the obvious fact that the rich man remains anonymous, the name Lazarus appears to have some significance here. The name "Lazarus" is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Eleazar. In the Talmudic book of Juchasin we read: "In Jerusalem Talmud every R. Eleazar is written without an Aleph, R. Lazar." (Juchasin, Fol. 81.1)

 

The name itself was very common in the first century and it means "God’s help" or "the help of God" but even beyond the meaning, which is appropriately assigned to the poorest of the poor, there is yet more meaning associated to Christ’s use of the name in this parable.

 

As John Lightfoot rightly observes, Lazarus is an allusion to Abraham’s servant: "But perhaps there may be something more aimed at in the name: for since the discourse is concerning Abraham and Lazarus, who would not call to mind Abraham and Eliezer his servant, one born at Damascus, a Gentile by birth, and sometime in posse [in potential] the heir of Abraham; but shut out of the inheritance by the birth of Isaac, yet restored here into Abraham’s bosom?" (John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 3, page 166)

 

Again, to the first-century audience to which Christ was addressing, this was a no-brainer: they all were familiar with the symbolism of the story.

 

Even the famed Rabbi Geiger Abraham suggested that the Lazarus of the parable in Luke 16 represented Abraham’s servant Eleazar (Geiger, Jüd. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 196 sq.) There was indeed a cultural and national awareness about Abraham’s servant, as Eleazar is being presented at the entrance of Abraham’s sepulcher, the cave of Machpelah. According to Gemarists, "R. Baanah painted the sepulchers: when he came to Abraham’s cave, he found Eliazar standing at the mouth of it. He said unto him, ‘What is Abraham doing?’ To whom he said, ‘He lieth in the embraces of Sarah.’ Then said Baanah, ‘Go and tell him that Baanah is at the door.’" (John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 3, page 166) Evidently, Eliazar, a Gentile born in Damascus was thought of as a very close servant and friend of Abraham.

 

Longing to be fed from the rich man’s table, Lazarus was covered in sores, portrayed as laying at the gate of the rich man’s estate. In Matthew 15, Jesus encountered a Canaanite woman who had a demon-possessed daughter. At first, Jesus ignored her, but apparently she began shouting at Him, so much so that the disciples were so annoyed by her that they asked Jesus to send her away but she became even more adamant asking for help. But Jesus answered: "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." And she replied saying "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." With that, Jesus recognized her faith and healed her daughter. Evidently, it was not uncommon for Jews to think of Gentiles as dogs longing for crumbs from the master’s table.

 

The Ger ha-Shaar, the proselyte at the gate, as Jews saw the Gentile converts, were the sojourners allowed to stay at city gates. Viewed as a little more than dogs, it is likely that this is why the reference to eating crumbs from the rich man’s table is being used. We also are told that dogs come and lick Lazarus’ sores. J. Patching (of Tentmaker) suggested that Luke 16:21 should be rendered as "the other dogs came and licked his sores." This is because "alla" could also mean "other(s)." While it is true that "alla" could mean "other(s)," I disagree with Patching. The conjunction "alla" is mostly, if not always, translated as "but" or "moreover" when followed by "kai" and is forming a transition from the "desire to eat the crumbs falling from the rich man’s table" to the cardinal matter of "dogs licking the sores." Patching is inaccurately rendering Luke 16:21; there is no need to force his translation on Luke 16:21 in order to conclude that Lazarus was a most likely viewed as a "dog" himself, being comforted only by dogs, a very important point in itself.

Regarding righteousness, there is nothing in the text to indicate that Lazarus was more righteous than the rich man; we are simply told that upon death, he is carried away by angels directly into Abraham’s bosom. In contrast, the rich man is simply buried. In Jewish theology, there are three "places" where souls of dead people end up:

 

1. In the Garden of Eden, or Paradise.
2. Under the throne of glory.
3. In Abraham’s bosom.

 

According to rabbinic literature, "The bosom of Abraham is the resting place of all of them that died in perfect state of grace before Christ’s time; heaven, before, being shut from men." (Pesikta, Fol. 93.1.) Because we know Lazarus ended up in Abraham’s bosom, we can deduce that for the sake of the parable, he did die in a "perfect state of grace." Furthermore, upon his death he was "carried away by angels," corresponding to a commonly-held opinion among Jews stating that the spirits of the righteous would be carried away by angels at the point of death.

 

Conclusion

 

Another characteristic of the afterlife we see presented in the parable is the "great gulf fixed" between Lazarus and the rich man, or a "chasm." I believe that too many readers tend to focus too much on the details of the chasm, which may not be the best way to approach the matter.

 

It seems that the endeavor in the parable is to describe a great separation between the two characters, a barrier impossible to cross, but not impossible to see. While Rabbi Jochanan said that "a wall is between," other rabbis said about the two sides that "they are so even with one another that you may see out of one into the other." (John Lightfoot, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 3, page 175)

 

Dr. Ernest Martin, writes about the possible identification and symbolism of the word "chasm" of Luke 16 bringing to light remarkable symbolism and meaning in the passage: "It was also common for many chasms (those described in Greek literature) to have water in their regions of deepest declivity. Let us now look at such a chasm from a Palestinian point of view. In that environment there is only one possible identification for the "great gulf" of the parable if it is to fit the meaning of the Greek chasm precisely. This would be the great rift valley between the highlands of Trans-Jordan and the hill country of Ephraim in which the River Jordan flows. This fault line is the greatest and longest visible chasm on earth. And what a spectacular sight it is! As one looks over the chasm he sees impressive cliffs on each side, a desert in its wastelands, and the River Jordan meandering in the center.

 

Identifying the chasm of the parable with the Jordan rift unfolds a beautiful symbolic story well recognized in contemporary Jewish allegorical narratives of the time. In the center of this "gulf" was the River Jordan. It divided the original land of promise given to Abraham from ordinary Gentile lands. The west side of Jordan represented the area that the Bible considered the original Holyland. As the angel said to Joshua: "Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon stand is holy. And Joshua did so" (Joshua 5:15). When the Israelites finally entered the chasm of the Jordan and crossed the river, they then considered themselves in the Holyland the land promised to Abraham and his seed! Entering the land of Canaan (west of Jordan) was also a symbol of final spiritual salvation. The author of Hebrews recognized that Israel’s crossing of the River Jordan under Joshua (and the taking of the land of Canaan) was typical of Christians obtaining their true "rest" in the future Kingdom of God (Hebrews 3:1–4:11). Even American Negro spirituals with which so many of us are familiar ("crossing into Canaan’s land") are reflective of this early symbolic theme." (Ernest L. Martin, Ph. D., The Real Meaning of Lazarus and the Rich Man)

 

While I am not certain as to whether or not the gulf in the parable was being descriptive of a literal chasm known by Jesus’ audience, in light of what we have already discussed about the identity of the rich man and Lazarus, this is an allusion to the separation which existed between the Jews and Gentiles. The separation is "spiritual" in nature, not geographical, and could not have been bridged by any man, but only by God.

Because the parable which we are discussing is not a random passage appearing in Luke 16, we can consult the previous parable given by Jesus in Luke 16, where Christ speaks of an unrighteous steward asked to give an account of his management of the riches entrusted to him. An obvious reference to the unrighteous stewards of the Law (the Jewish nation), Jesus says "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you?"

 

So the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is simply a continuation of the parable of the unrighteous steward given earlier in Luke 16. Jesus is teaching the same thing using a different story: Israel was a bad steward of what God had entrusted to her, living in splendor and glory and losing track of the important things. This ties neatly into the identification of Lazarus with Eleazar, the steward and manager of Abraham’s riches. It is worthy to note that Eleazar, while entitled legally to Abrahams’ inheritance lost that inheritance to Isaac. It is comforting to know however that through the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, we see Eleazar being restored and inheriting the better things in Abraham, the spiritual riches, being in Abraham’s bosom in comfort while the rich man is in anguish, missing on the real thing, Abraham’s bosom.

In fact, when the rich man asks Abraham if Lazarus could be brought back from the dead, so his five brothers would believe, Abraham’s answer is "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them."

The passage begs the question "Who had Moses and the Prophets?" Of course, the clear answer is "Israel!" Israel was the only group of people who had Moses and the Prophets entrusted to them. The rich man insisted, saying "No, Father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!'" Again, Abraham answers "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead." The second question begged by Abraham’s response is "Who was not persuaded by the resurrection of the dead, specifically the resurrection of Christ?" The answer again is "Israel!"

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man does not seem to focus on the mechanics of Hades, nor does it teach that rich people go to hell and poor people go to heaven; it is not a literal story illustrating what will happen to us when we die, nor is it a real story about a real rich man and a real poor man named Lazarus; it is also not a parable teaching that the roles of the rich and the poor will somehow be reversed after death. Rather, the parable is strongly tied to the historical and cultural context of Christ’s Judea and it teaches us that "replacement theology" is again, a valid theological concept.

 

In A.D. 70, the Jewish Temple, which stood as a symbol of separation between Jews and Gentiles, between man and God was destroyed. Consequently God’s presence has been restored to mankind and humanity has been reconciled to its Creator; the chasm has been bridged.

 

  as of 12-2005