home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

Lazarus and the Rich Man 

return to the main-page article on "Hell" 

Editor's note: This article of mine was written circa. 2000. It's included here for the benefit of those who find ultimate authority in the Bible.

One of the most famous of Jesus' many parables, the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man, has been enlisted to support a variety of theological positions.

Some say that the Rich Man's conversation with Abraham "proves" that we should pray to illustrious saints in heaven.

Others maintain that God decidedly frowns upon the rich and that this story offers clear evidence of holy displeasure toward all things opulent.

But among the loudest claimants to the "true meaning" of Jesus' teaching here are those who confidently assert that sinners go to hell, go directly to hell, without any chance of ever passing "go" again -- the ever-burning, ever-torturing, kind of hell that would have made Dante proud.

We must carefully analyze the words of Jesus, the testimony of various scholars, and for no extra charge, I will also offer my own thoughts.

Since Jesus' famous parable is so often misrepresented -- and, I think, egregiously so -- it will be profitable and necessary to begin our investigation by recounting some basic principles of literary analysis.

Dr. Mortimer Adler, in his excellent work, How To Read A Book (I highly recommend the 1940 edition), explains that newspapers, cheap magazines and comics may be skimmed quickly -- but great literature must be digested slowly, read with a view toward understanding.

To that end, various tools will help us, for example, historical background of the story's setting, etymology, information about the author, etc. -- but at least two factors are pressed upon the reader as absolute requirements for proper analysis:

(1) Context is paramount. The writer's overall intent, frame of mind, and logical flow of argument must be determined.

(2) Define key words and phrases. But, as Hamlet tells us, here's the "rub." Such terms must be defined not according to private desires or wishes but as the author would have us understand them. Anything less creates an interpretation that will become a kind of literary Rorschach Ink-blot Test, a version of the story expressing the reader's mind rather than the author's.

But how, by what process, shall we define key terms when the author fails to spell out for us the "plain for any fool to see" meaning? The answer often is: the context will tell us what the writer means when s/he uses key terms.

Since this is such an important principle, and one so infrequently respected, I am compelled to offer two examples before proceeding to Jesus' parable:

• Context is never so important as in a joke -- in fact, it is the quick reversal and switching of context that seems to be at the heart of almost every humorous story!

Let's listen in on John F. Kennedy's sparkling opening remarks at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner during the 1960 Presidential campaign:

I am glad to be here at this notable dinner once again and I am glad that Mr. Nixon is here also [applause]. Now that Cardinal Spellman has demonstrated the proper spirit, I assume that shortly I will be invited to a Quaker dinner honoring Herbert Hoover [laughter].

 

Cardinal Spellman is the only man so widely respected in American politics that he could bring together, amicably, at the same banquet table, for the first time in this campaign, two political leaders who are increasingly apprehensive about the November election -- who have long eyed each other suspiciously and who have disagreed so strongly, both publicly and privately -- Vice-President Nixon and Governor Rockefeller [laughter].

Mr. Nixon, like the rest of us, has had his troubles in this campaign. At one point even the Wall Street Journal was criticizing his tactics. That is like the Osservatore Romano criticizing the Pope.

But I think the worst news for the Republicans this week was that Casey Stengel has been fired [laughter]. It must show that perhaps experience does not count [laughter and applause]...

Mr. Kennedy was in rare form that night in New York. Notice his brilliantly crafted and executed context-switcheroo: we were all expecting him to comment on Mr. Nixon when he pulls the context-rug out from under us and speaks of the two Republican rivals, Nixon and Rockefeller.

Now imagine someone listening to all of this who has no sense of humor -- that is, no sense of context, sense for neither the sublime nor the farcical. He might leave that dinner frowning, complaining and charging that Mr. Kennedy:

• was no fan of Casey Stengal and secretly disliked baseball;
• believed that Casey Stengal worked for the Republicans;
• placed no value on and ridiculed experience;
• was planning on leaving his Catholic faith to become a Quaker;
• implied that Nixon was criticizing the Pope;
• was seriously considering Herbert Hoover as his running mate.

Some of these absurd errors may be attributed to ignorance of 1960 political issues. For example, Mr. Nixon was emphasizing his high-office "experience" as Vice-President, while minimizing the same for the young Senator from Massachusetts. Without this context, we will miss Kennedy's punch line.

But a good deal of the above misunderstanding derives simply from poor analytical skills: ignoring context, not listening carefully, jumping to conclusions, recasting the speaker's words in terms of private interpretations. And if anyone brings similar mistakes of literary discernment to Jesus' parable, we will be equally unimpressed by out-of-context interpretations of the Rich Man's one-liners.

Evaluating a joke and a parable has more in common than you might guess. Consider Biblical scholar W. Hendricksen's insight (a lengthy quotation but necessary, I think, for our purposes):

You remember, of course, the Parable of the Good Samaritan, Luke 10. Now, there are some who would interpret this beautiful story in the following manner:

"The man who is on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho represents Adam, the head of the human race. He left the heavenly city and is traveling down to the city of earth, the profane city. But, having turned his desires toward the earth, he falls into the hands of robbers: that is, he is overpowered by Satan and his evil angels. These robbers strip him of the garment of original righteousness. They also beat him, leaving him full of wounds, half-dead (!). Yes, half-dead, in sins and trespasses (!). The priest and the Levite represent the law and the sacrifices. They cannot save the sinner. They are powerless to help. But the Good Samaritan, namely, Jesus Christ, is traveling that way and helps the poor sinner. This Good Samaritan dresses his wounds with the oil of the Holy Spirit and with wine, namely, the blood of his Passion. He, then, puts the poor man on his own mule, that is, on the merits of his own righteousness (!). He takes the poor man to an inn, that is, to church. The next day, the Good Samaritan gives the host two shillings, that is, the Word and the Sacraments, in order that with these he may provide for the spiritual needs of the poor sinner. Then this Good Samaritan departs but promises to return later."

Now, my dear reader, if you have the type of mentality that enjoys such spiritualizing explanations, you might as well close this book. You will never really understand the Parables of our Lord... Let us emphasize the fact that the explanation just given is wrong from start to finish.

It is altogether wrong to ask: what is meant by the poor man who fell among the robbers; what is meant by the robbers, the priest, the Levite, the Good Samaritan, the wine, the oil, the mule, the inn, the two shillings. Not any of these things has any "deeper," spiritual meaning whatever!

If the mule must be spiritualized, who is going to determine exactly what is its meaning? And what about the two shillings? Do they represent the two sacraments, the word and sacraments, or the two testaments, perhaps? Who is going to determine this? The context in which the parable occurs says nothing about it. And because the context says nothing, we should say nothing!

Surely, all these elements of the parable: wine, oil, priest, Levite, inn, two shillings, etc., have their value. They belong to the parable. Without them the parable would not be complete and would convey no meaning. But you should not ascribe a separate, spiritual meaning to each of these features. They simply serve to make the parable complete.

 

 

Then, once you have read the entire parable, you should ask: now, what is the meaning of this parable, taken as a whole?

 

 

 

Each parable teaches one central lesson.

 

 

 

A little study of the context usually makes this one central lesson perfectly clear. In the light of Luke 10:25-29, also verses 36, 37, we see that the meaning of this beautiful story is this: instead of asking, "Who is my neighbor?" we should be neighbor to whomsoever the Lord happens to place in our path...

Do not try to give a "deeper" interpretation to the details, except insofar as the interpretation of these details is necessary in order to bring out the full meaning of the central idea of the symbol.

 

 

Hendricksen gives us extremely valuable advice here. As we prepare to invade Jesus' parable of "Lazarus and the Rich Man," we would do well to consider all of the above. Before we even start speculating about, "What is the deeper meaning of Abraham's bosom, torment, tongue, flame, water, crumbs, dogs or hell" -- let's begin by asking, "What prompted Jesus to offer this parable in the first place? What was his purpose? Who was he speaking to?"

The receipt of this information will take us a long way toward revealing the one central lesson of the Master's parable.

And here it is -- the true reason for the "Lazarus and the Rich Man" story -- why Jesus sat back with a wry smile on his face that said, "Have I got a parable for you!"

Luke 16: 14: Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided Him. And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

Let's look at this closely. Here's what scholars tell us:

derided: "Literally [from the Greek], to turn up the nose at. The Romans had a corresponding phrase ... to hang on the hooked nose: i.e., to turn up the nose and make a hook of it, on which (figuratively) to hang the subject of ridicule. Thus Horace, in one of his satires, giving an account of a pretentious banquet at the house of a rich miser, describes one of the guests as hanging everything to his nose; i.e., making a joke of everything that occurred. The simple verb occurs at Gal. 6. 7, of mocking God" (Vincent); "These money-loving Pharisees were quick to see that the words of Jesus about the wise use of money [in the previous parable] applied to them. They had stood without comment with the three parables aimed directly at them (the lost sheep, the lost coin, the lost son). But now they do not remain quiet while they hear the fourth parable" (Robertson).

We begin to get the picture -- the "context."

The Pharisees, acting cool and detached, listening in on Jesus' teaching, make no comment -- that is, until He begins to take them to task for their religious profiteering. We can hear them jeering and guffawing at the idea that they could be motivated by filthy lucre and not the purest love of the God.

Jesus, much like Lincoln who was forever responding with, "That reminds me of a story," pulls out of his teaching-bag of parables the perfect one for the occasion: "There was a certain rich man ... (verse 19)."

Various scholars offer insight regarding this parable's relation to Jesus' preceding words:

"In this parable the Saviour impressively illustrates the truth uttered by Him in verse 15b: that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. During his life on earth the rich man was a splendid example of one who was highly esteemed among men. But after his death his condition was a striking proof that, notwithstanding the high esteem in which he was held by men, he was, on account of his selfish and heartless life, an abomination in the sight of God, the Judge of the human heart, and the Judge who judges righteously" (Geldenhuys).

This parable "marks the contrast with the attitude inculcated in the parable of the unrighteous steward. Perhaps we can go further back and say that this chapter challenges the elder son of the previous parable and with him all the respectable to act in the spirit of the unrighteous steward. They should repent and then help others with their money. The alternative is to use their money in such a way as to secure ... condemnation" (Morris).

"Once, as Jesus taught on stewardship and covetousness, the Pharisees sneered at His word. Jesus replied with an assortment of remarks, culminating in this parable. A close comparison of the parable to its immediate context reveals so many parallels that one marvels at the intricate connection. Yet many advocates of eternal, conscious torment write as though the story had no context at all, as if its primary point is one found nowhere in the context... The plot of the parable, the reversal of earthly fortunes after death, was familiar in popular Palestinian stories of Jesus' time. Hugo Gressmann cites a Greek parallel from a first-century Egyptian papyrus, and he says

• there are at least seven versions of this story in Jewish literature.

"One of the most famous involved a poor student of the Law and a rich publican named Bar Ma'jan. There are differences between these stories and Jesus', of course, and therein lies the Lord's uniqueness. But the basic plot was well-known folklore" (Fudge).

"In 1918 Hugo Gressmann of the University of Berlin published an elaborate monograph on the parable which has influenced much of its subsequent interpretation. According to Gressmann, the story that Jesus told was a Jewish version of an ancient Egyptian tale, still extant in a demotic papyrus of the first century A.D. The body of a wealthy man, clad in his finest attire, was carried to his grave by a large company of mourners. At the same time the body of a poor man was removed for burial, unaccompanied by attendants and covered only by a mat. An observer, impressed by the disparity in the honors bestowed on the two, commented on the advantages enjoyed by the rich man, but changed his views when he was permitted to visit the underworld. There he saw the poor man clothed in the linen garments of the rich and given a place of honor, while the rich man suffered torment for his evil deeds. The story concludes with the moral: He who is good on earth fares well in the realm of the dead, and he who is evil on earth fares ill (Gilmour).

This context will be most helpful to us in determining Jesus' central lesson. With this background clearly in view, we shall now carefully read the story and commentators' remarks:

¹⁹ "There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. 20But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, 21desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

was clothed: The Greek indicates that this was his "habit" to dress lavishly (Robertson).

purple: Indicates a "very costly" dye used by the wealthy and royalty (Robertson).

sumptuously: It was his habit, each day, to eat "shiningly," in "splendor" (Vincent); The rich man "strove after no higher purpose in life than to use his riches in selfishness and ostentation for worldly pleasure" (Geldenhuys).

Lazarus: "Abbreviated from Eleazar, and meaning God is a help" (Vincent). Certainly no man offered help to "this unfortunate. This is the only character given a name in [any of] Jesus' parables. Sometimes the rich man is called Dives, but this is simply the Latin for rich man" (Morris).

was laid: The Greek suggests a measure of violence as if Lazarus were "flung" down, implying "contemptuous roughness" (Robertson). Contrast this with the daily "shining" banquets of the rich man, blessed by all, the star of everyone's matinee.

at his gate: Though Lazarus was in plain view, on Dive's doorstep, so to speak, "the rich man had no open eye and sympathetic heart for the needs and sufferings of others" (Geldenhuys). Dives was blinded by narcissism.

desiring to be fed with the crumbs: see notes below for "water" and "tongue"

dogs: It was so bad that "only the dogs took an interest in him and licked his sores" (Geldenhuys).

²²So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. ²³And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

beggar died ... rich man also died: Notice the heightened sense of contrast created by the story-teller, Jesus. The beggar is escorted to the spiritual realm by angelic attendants; human succor, burial of the body, is not even mentioned. How different for Dives! No statement of any heavenly guide leading him to reward -- all he gets is a measly 5-star burial, the best money can buy, of course, and attended by all the right people. Big deal!

Summary thoughts. "Hades," as the Bible uses the term, seems to be almost synonymous with death itself; it is a place where all -- the wicked and the righteous -- go to after death. Jesus himself, the Scripture teaches, went to Hades after the Cross! As such, the Rich Man is not alone in Hades -- Lazarus and Abraham are there with him! One thing of which we can be sure: a careful investigation of Scripture reveals the fallacy of the traditional and popular view of "hell" propounded since the Middle Ages and before.

he ... saw Abraham: Some rabbis of Jesus' day taught that Hades had various regions or sections, suitable living for both the good and bad: "The Jews believed that Gehenna and Paradise were close together. This detail in the parable does not demand that we believe it. The picture calls for it" (Robertson). Notice that, despite the great chasm of separation, the Rich Man is within speaking distance of Abraham.

bosom: This word is also used to signify the close relationship between the Father and Son (John 1:18). While this sense should not be ignored, Morris insightfully points out that the context indicates something more. John, at the Last Supper, reclined at the meal (they didn't use Western-style tables and chairs) with his head near the bosom, the "front of the body between the arms" (Vine), of Jesus. This position at the Eastern low-table suggests a picture of friends reclining, sharing a meal.

Do you hear the echo? Where have we heard of meal and table before? Yes, of course, Lazarus was introduced to us as one who desired to eat the crumbs of the rich man's table! Jesus' uses the word-pictures of table and eating -- common symbols of friendship and love -- to become for Lazarus one more avenue to suffering. But wait! Catch the contrast! In the next life, Lazarus is found at Abraham's bosom, a highly suggestive reference, given the context, to Lazarus' new-found fellowship, love and acceptance, symbolized by a meal with a friend, Abraham! The logical flow of these thoughts is confirmed by what happens next!

he ... saw Abraham ... and Lazarus in his bosom: Jesus is painting a striking word-picture: the rich man sees the festivities, the grand heavenly party, one to which he is not invited; he sees Lazarus in Abraham's bosom, now "faring sumptuously" as he once did, reclining at meal, thoroughly enjoying himself, eating and drinking -- what a reversal! Now Dives is, in effect, sitting "at the gate" of Lazarus' house, hoping and praying for the smallest bit of refreshment to fall his way!

²⁴Then he cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."

Then he cried: Witnessing this heavenly banquet-table of fellowship and love,  Dives cries out in anxious desperation!

dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue: Some of you, dear readers, all of your lives, have heard that these words mean, "Sinners go to hell and roast for eternity." I hope, after the foregoing discussion, that you now begin to see that such an interpretation is gross error. Jesus' purpose here is not to deliver a technical, scientific, clinical explanation of the nature of the afterlife. As we learned above from scholars, Jesus has borrowed a well-known folk tale from Jewish culture and has remodeled it for his own purposes! Again, let's keep our eyes on the context -- and marvel at the intricate web of contrasts that Jesus, the Master Storyteller, is weaving for us. Lazarus, in the days of his humility, wished only for a meager gift of crumbs -- just the smallest gesture of human kindness from Dives. In a similar vein, now with situations reversed, Dives, viewing the joyous party from afar and acknowledging his own diminished state, asks for the smallest possible portion of refreshment -- just a drop on the tongue! Now Dives is the beggar! In effect, he's saying, "Surely, you wouldn't miss or begrudge me a tiny drop of cool water from your table, would you? (Never mind that I disallowed for you even the smallest crumb from my table)."

water: As explained, the context strongly suggests a "drink of cool water" to refresh -- not a "fire hose" to quench a burning at the stake! Again, those who are not only poor theologians -- but, more fundamentally, poor readers -- will make the brash claim that this verse speaks of eternal burning in hell.

This makes no sense on a number of levels, not the least of which is the surface (quite apart from the metaphorical) meaning of the text: if I were being roasted on a spit in hell, I certainly wouldn't be yelling for a drop of water on my tongue! Apparently, it's necessary to state the obvious here -- what good would a drop of water on the tongue do for somebody taking an eternal bath in hot coals? And since Dives does, in fact, make such a request, it is more than suggestive that Jesus, employing metaphor and symbolism, means to take us in a different direction!

tormented: Some will charge that this word speaks of the sufferings of excruciating torture.

• As per the above reference to the Rorschach Ink-blot Test, such assertions reveal much more about the state of mind of those who believe in eternal punishment than about any illumination of the Greek text of the New Testament.

Consider Vincent's evaluation of the KJV rendering: "Tormented is too strong. The word is used of the sorrow of Joseph and Mary when the child Jesus was missing (Luke 2:48); and of the Ephesian elders on parting with Paul (Acts 20:38)." It begins to become clear that, contrary to what popular preaching makes of this verse, the Rich Man is in deep mental anguish over the kind of life he led that brought him to his present state. There is no reference here at all to pains caused by dancing on hot coals, a fanciful notion wholly unsupported by both the text and context.

flame: Jesus is not referring to literal flames of fire. No, it seems increasingly clear that "flame" here becomes a metaphor for the burning mental anguish of remorse! "That the flame should not be taken literally but in a symbolical sense, appears from the fact that in the Bible mention is often made in connection with the unsaved (in the realm of the dead as well as in Gehenna) of the darkness and utter gloom which encompasses them. Flaming fire and darkness, of course, exclude each other. Thus in such Biblical expressions we have the symbolical description of the hapless plight of the lost" (Geldenhuys).

²⁵But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. ²⁶And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.'

received: "as a reward" or just recompense, the natural result of choices (Vincent).

you received your good things: "Abraham ... answers that ... [Dives] had chosen worldly riches and worldly pleasure and luxury as his highest good, he had reveled in it completely without accumulating treasures for eternity, and so it is, [in a sense, fitting] that he has now become the beggar steeped in suffering" (Geldenhuys).

your good things ... Lazarus evil things: "During his life he had regarded his worldly possessions as his own -- as things to be used by him only for the sake of his own honour, ease and pleasure, and had not regarded them as gifts entrusted to him by God for the purpose of using them for the welfare of others (especially the needy ones) and to the honour of God. So he had chosen as his portion the earthly, evanescent things, and therefore he has only himself to blame that he is now in this pitiable state... On the other hand, Lazarus, when he was on earth, had, without uttering a single word of hate or bitterness against the rich man or against God, accepted the painful trials that had come upon him. He had not allowed suffering to drive him away from God, but had remained a true child of Abraham -- a God-fearing sufferer such as Job had been" (Geldenhuys);

"Abraham gives a reasoned refusal of the request. His address, Son, is tender. But he points to a reversal. In life the rich man had had his good things. The adjective your is significant. He had had what he chose. He could have spent time with the things of God and delighted in the word of God. He could have engaged in almsgiving (Lazarus had been close enough!). For him good things had been purple and fine linen, daily merriment and feasting. He had chosen what he wanted as his good things and now he must abide by his choice. Lazarus had received evil things. In this case there is no his. Lazarus had not been responsible for the evils he had suffered" (Morris).

great gulf fixed: "This is no doubt a pictorial detail," but it seems clear that in the afterlife there is no easy and cavalier transference among regions of Hades for its inhabitants (Morris).

²⁷"Then he said, 'I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' 29Abraham said to him, 'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.' 30And he said, 'No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' 31But he said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead."'

five brothers: "Jeremias classes the parable with three others he calls 'double-edged' (Matt. 22:1-14; 20:1-16; Luke 15:11-32). In each case Jesus begins with a story familiar to His hearers. But having gained their attention and probably their approval, He throws in an 'epilogue' which contains His real message. The stress is therefore on that second point--in this case the plight of the five living brothers who are ignoring the word of God.

• "The parable should not be called The Rich Man and Lazarus, says Jeremias, but The Six Brothers" (Fudge quoting Jeremias).

If they do not hear Moses: "Abraham points to the Scriptures. Moses, of course, means 'the writings of Moses', and the combination with the prophets points to the whole of Scripture, as in verse 16." (Morris);

"These last words of the parable were undoubtedly uttered by the Saviour with a view to His own resurrection. The sign for which the Jews had so often asked would be given by His resurrection, but He knew that even this would not move the worldly-minded to a saving faith in Him. And this was abundantly proved by the actual course of events." (Geldenhuys).

Final Thoughts

"The parable's interpretation must include its context. And nothing in the context remotely suggests the final state of the wicked [as the primary purpose], though Jesus does clearly intend to teach several other lessons. He has been preaching on covetousness and stewardship (Luke 16:1-13); the rich man's only implied sin is his totally selfish neglect of Lazarus. When the Pharisees sneer at Jesus' teaching, He warns them against self-justification, reminding them that God knows their hearts and that what men highly value God often detests (vv. 14, 15). The rich man and Lazarus provide perfect illustrations of this truth, too, as the parable twice contrasts them alongside each other -- first showing man's estimation and then showing God's (vv. 19, 25). Perhaps most important of all, the Pharisees are wasting every opportunity to hear and obey God, though they live in the most critical of times (vv. 16, 17). This is the same mistake the rich man made on earth, a mistake his brothers continue to make after he is gone.

• "It is also the only conclusion Jesus specifically draws... at the end of the story (v. 31) (Fudge)."

"Neither will they be persuaded ... Gressmann calls attention to the fact that Jesus is saying this in the conclusion of the parable... 'The Pharisees tried to put [another] Lazarus to death and to explain away the resurrection of Jesus' (Plummer).

"The Saviour related this parable not in order to satisfy our curiosity about life after death but to emphasize vividly the tremendous seriousness of life on this side of the grave -- on the choice made here by us depends our ... weal or woe" (Geldenhuys).

"We must remember that we have here to do with a parable and not with a real occurrence and that 'it is no purpose of the parable to give information about the unseen world. The general principle is maintained that bliss and misery after death was determined by conduct before death, but the details of the picture are taken from Jewish beliefs as to the condition of souls in Sheol, and must not be understood as confirming those beliefs...'" (Geldenhuys quoting Plummer).

"This parable is not theology. It is a vivid story, not a Baedeker's guide to the next world. Such stories as this were current in Jesus' day..." (Gilmour).

Editor's note: I had not properly understood this parable until investigating it for this article. I was particularly moved (chastened!) by Jesus' portrayal of Lazarus, silently, nobly, bearing his sufferings; also, I found myself marveling at Jesus' skill as he contrasted the lives of the two men --

• the two tables,
• the two meals,
• the two humble requests for minimal sustenance,
• the two beggars,
• the two rich men,
• the two deaths,
• the two life messages

-- a didactic masterpiece.

Works Cited

Fudge. The Fire That Consumes

Geldenhuys. The New International Commentary on the NT

Gilmour. The Interpreter's Bible: Luke & John

Morris. Tyndale NT Commentaries: Luke

Robertson. Word Pictures in the NT

Vincent. Vincent's Word Studies of the NT

Vine. Expository Dictionary of NT Words