A Gate and Two Souls: Luke 16:19-31
The Gospel of Luke provides some unique, though similar descriptions and teachings that are found within the other two Synoptics. One passage that is unique to Luke’s Gospel and that has brought many questions and intrigue is found in Luke 16:19-31. This is commonly known as the parable Jesus tells, “The Rich Man and Lazarus.” This text has brought much intrigue and questions concerning the nature and reality that Jesus describes; however, prior to addressing the parable itself, it is important to understand the general and overall context in which it fits within Luke’s Gospel. With that said, this paper will seek to provide insight into Luke 16:19-31’s overall context in Luke’s Gospel, observe the unique origin of the parable, and provide exegetical insight into the text itself.
The Context
Furthermore, the general context of Luke 16:19-31 must be considered to better understand the meaning of the text and why Jesus (and Luke) tells this parable. This is found within what has been referred to as the “Travel Narrative” in Luke’s Gospel, which spans Luke 9:51 to 19:27. This is the section where we see many of the famous parables and material that is unique to Luke’s Gospel, the Rich Man and Lazarus being one of these additions. Luke’s use of the material in this section demonstrates several themes that readers will see. One of these themes is focused on the contrast between the wealthy and the poor. For instance, this is explicitly seen in Luke’s usage of the “Beatitudes” as a woe to those who are rich and are comfortable. “But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full” (Luke 6:24 NASB 2020). This is then seen again in parables like Luke 12:16-21 that discourage the pursuit of an abundance of wealth. It is also mentioned directly towards the Pharisees in Luke 16:14, which we will refer to later, and their clear love for money. Luke would also use the account of the widow and her offering in Luke 21:1ff. There is a clear contrast between the wealthy and the widow that is presented. This is not only evident with the teachings of Jesus, but also Luke’s inclusion and exposition concerning the birth narratives, which demonstrate the themes of the rich vs. the poor, though in a different fashion. Luke heavily emphasizes this throughout his Gospel and doubles down on the idea with the telling of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31.
While it is clear to see how Luke draws this theme out throughout his Gospel account, it is important to see how the parable of the rich man and Lazarus applies in the immediate context of Luke 16 in its entirety. Without breaking up the passage and giving an honest reading of Luke 16, we will see that the parable is connected and within the same setting as the preceding parable of the unjust steward in Luke 16:1-12. This is also within the same setting of the telling of the parables in Luke 15, as the “Lost Parables” are told by Jesus to the disciples. This is found with the connecting phrase of Luke 16:1, “Now He was also saying to the disciples…” This makes the connection back to what was previously discussed. Additionally, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is connected by the start of the parable of the unrighteous manager by the same opening phrase, “There was a rich man…” (Luke 16:1,19). Additionally, Luke 16:19-31 includes a prelude to the parable, which is found in 16:14-18 and provides a secondary audience to the teachings of Jesus. This is also key to understanding the context of the parable and the continued theme that Luke presents concerning wealth. France states, “Central to this teaching on wealth has been the assumption that this world is not the end, and that how we use our wealth with respect to other people has consequences for our life after death. This parable focuses in on that theme.”[1] It seems reasonable to conclude that Luke does this intentionally to show the outcast or “lost” being saved and the mistreatment of others due to the indifference that wealth can bring to those who possess the ability to help others, with the connection of the parables in chapter 16 to chapter 15, but also throughout the rest of the travel narrative, as many parables are focused on the outcast and poor of society.
Parable or Narrative?
Despite this text being connected to the parables that occur in Luke 15, this parable is rather unique as it is being described by Jesus. The information provided has caused much debate on whether this is truly a parable or a literal event that is being described. Several points are made in refuting the parabolic nature of the rich man and Lazarus. For instance, some suggest there is a lack of a definitive introduction or designation that this is a parable.[2] However, it is common in the ministry and teachings of Jesus for Him to use parabolic teaching in unconventional forms. For instance, in the parable of the good Samaritan, Luke does not offer an introduction to the parable. Others suggest that the naming and appearance of Lazarus point to a more literal reading, given that he is the only named character in Jesus’ parables.[3]Though the naming of Lazarus is quite unique to this parable, this does not entirely mean that it is meant to be taken literally. It is also important to understand that this is not the same Lazarus that is connected to the Lazarus in John 11. There may be two reasonable options as to why Lazarus is named specifically in this parable, which we will consider within the text itself. However, despite these claims and the wrestling with the unique information Jesus provides, it does seem sufficient evidence to suggest that it should be read in a literal/narrative fashion. Barnes concludes that this is to be considered parabolic in the sense that it isn’t pointing to an occasion that has happened, but one where it may happen.[4]As previously considered with the similar introduction of 16:1, it seems evident that this text should be studied and interpreted as a parable rather than read narratively.
The Background of the Parable
With the understanding that this is a parable, is there more to this parable than just being a parable? It is noticeable that Jesus reveals unique information to make His point using this imagery in the parable. It has brought many questions and debate amongst scholars as to whether Jesus is describing a real event or not. For instance, the parable that Jesus presents has some stark parallels to similar stories in Egyptian and Jewish culture. The Egyptian story of Si-Osiris and several stories of the Palestinian Talmud provide parallels to the rich man and Lazarus parable. Both stories include a reversal of the poor and the rich in the afterlife. H. Gressmann supposed that Jesus used the folk stories in the first half of the parable (v. 19-26) and that the second half of the parable is original to Jesus (v.27-31).[5] Interestingly, Hock provides some criticism concerning Gressmann’s work and points out that Lucian’s Cataplus, in an attempt to “widen the comparative net,” is worth consideration for a better understanding of the parable. Hock provides parallels and comparisons to Micyllus (the poor man in Lucian’s story) and Lazarus in the Lucan parable for consideration. However, Hock states, “I can include the whole of the Greco-Roman world. This distinction is clearly justified in terms of social roles and experience, for Lazarus and Micyllus inhabited very much the same social world, albeit at its margins amongst the poor townspeople.”[6]
Despite the positions of known cultural stories to tell this parable and of similar motifs, it is important to understand that Jesus’ authenticity remains intact in the telling of the rich man and Lazarus. For instance, another place where Jesus could be using language and allusions to literature that his audience would be familiar with is found in Matthew 11:28-30. Strauss points out that the personification of Jesus as the wisdom of God brings parallels to Jewish wisdom literature from the Second Temple period, such as in Sirach 51:23, 25-27.[7] Even though there are allusions to a secondary text, these are still the authentic words of Christ. Richard Bauckham concludes, “The parable, on the other hand, uses both motifs differently. It does not tell the same story.”[8]Although the claims of cultural stories and other literature are paralleled and similar motifs are used, Jesus refashions these motifs to create His own story, thus maintaining the unity and authenticity of the parable.
Exegeting Luke 16:19-31
After consideration of the nature of the parable and its background, consideration of the text is important to see what the text is teaching in its context to the Gospel of Luke. As mentioned, Jesus similarly begins in the same way as Luke 16:1. The beginning of the parable is directly connected to the prelude of 16:13-18. The audience shifts from the disciples (16:1-13) to the Pharisees (16:14). We see the response and disposition towards the teachings of Jesus concerning, but also the following verses demonstrate how their self-righteousness and love of wealth have caused them to overlook other aspects of the commandments of God (16:15-18). Luke then connects this thought and idea with the telling of the rich man and Lazarus. The parable begins by describing the rich man and his lifestyle as he “habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, enjoying himself in splendor every day” (Luke 16:19 NASB). This description of the rich man summarizes two marks concerning the wealthy in Jesus’ day: having fine clothing and an abundant diet. [9] This would relate to the description Jesus gives concerning the ministry of John the Baptist in Luke 7:25, in contrast to John’s lifestyle with the wealthy. The following verses of 16:20-21 further demonstrate the contrast between the lifestyle and condition of the rich man and Lazarus. Interestingly, an additional description is given to Lazarus to demonstrate the condition of life that he possesses. Luke includes that Lazarus was “laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed from the scraps which fell from the rich man’s table” (Luke 16:21). This immediately shows the contrast between the rich man, as he was clothed and covered in fine linen, while Lazarus is “clothed” in sores. The portraits of the characters take a dramatic shift in 16:22-23 as both men die. Again, additional information is given to the poor man rather than the rich man concerning death. Luke describes the poor man being “carried away by the angels to Abraham’s arms,” and the rich man is described as “died and was buried” (16:22). It is important to take a moment and note the separation that is present prior to the afterlife imagery that Jesus provides. Johnathan Robinson brings special attention to the spatial setup by stating, “Luke’s spatial setup of the parable elucidates a social hierarchy.”[10] This brings attention to the next imagery as a reversal occurs with the initial setup of the characters.
Furthermore, the imagery transitions from the physical spatial imagery to an afterlife imagery. Both the Lazarus and the rich man end up in different locations in the afterlife. Lazarus in Abraham’s arms/bosom, while the rich man “torments” in Hades (16:23). It is important to understand that both characters are within Hades. Luke seems to be using Greco-Roman language to describe a comparable afterlife location/concept like Sheol as found in Psalm 6:5.[11]
Additionally, the inclusion of Abraham is an important feature of this parable, as he plays a key role in the reversal of the parable. It would be a “plot twist” for the audience to hear that the rich man is separated from Abraham as seen in 16:23-24. Abraham’s presence symbolizes a feast of eternal blessing and comfort that the Israelites had greatly yearned for.[12] This designation is clear, as the rich man refers to Abraham as “father” and requests that Abraham send Lazarus to bring comfort to him. The reader gets insight into how the rich man viewed Lazarus in his life and in the afterlife. The response Abraham gives describes the reversal of the two as the rich man received “good things” and “likewise Lazarus bad things” (16:25). A description concerning Hades is given by Abraham as a “great chasm” separates the rich man and the poor man finalizing their destinations as “you will not be able, nor will any people cross over from there to us” (16:26). This would be a similar separation that the “gate” served, which separated the two before they died in the parable. 1 Enoch 22 provides imagery of separation of the afterlife between the righteous and the wicked, which the Pharisees would be familiar with this imagery.
Despite the finality of Abraham’s words, the rich man supposes that Lazarus may warn his family concerning the torment he experiences. Abraham’s words in 16:27-31 serve as the critical point of the parable. The rich man supposes that his family would heed the appearance and words of a messenger from the afterlife. However, Abraham tells him that they have everything they need as a warning to avoid a similar fate. Not even a revelation from someone from the dead would change the callous heart of someone who insistently spurns what God has revealed through His word.[13] With the abundance and accessibility of wealth at his disposal, the expectation for the rich man was to leave his home and pass through the gate to assist Lazarus. [14] The final words of the parable seem to serve as the crux of the parable and a lesson for the audience, the Pharisees. The Pharisees are the rich men in the story. Luke portrays a self-righteous lover of wealth who neglects the treatment of others, as the rich man does. This portrayal reflects the self-righteousness of the Pharisees, who assumed their wealth and good health demonstrated blessing and favor from God, but the parable shows the reversal of false security. [15]
Theological Reflections of Luke 16:19-31
In conclusion, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus offers clarity concerning how diligent followers of God should view and handle wealth. Jesus previously taught in the prelude of the parable that “no servant can serve two masters,” which instructs the importance of being mindful of who they truly follow. It is evident in the parable that the common theme that is taught by the Lord is “the first being last.” Jesus will exalt those who humble themselves in His sight and humble those who scoff and live pridefully (Luke 18:14). Additionally, it is clear to see the hospitality of Jesus towards the outcast and those who are unable to save or help themselves, which would be a major criticism against Jesus by the religious leaders of Israel.[16] However, the overwhelming teaching about Jesus in this parable is found in the conclusion of the parable. The words of Abraham in 16:31 point to the hardness of heart concerning the revelation of God. It seems appropriate concerning the Travel Narrative towards Jerusalem that Jesus is pointing to His death and resurrection. Luke also appeals to this idea in his sequel in Acts, as many of the pivotal sermons center on the resurrection of Jesus. It is based on the reception of whether or not the hearers of the message respond and act on the Gospel, which then seals our fate. [17]
[1] R.T. France, Luke. Edited by Mark L. Strauss and John H. Walton. Teach the Text Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2013, 266.
[2] Darrell Bock, Luke: 2 Volumes Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2016), 1693.
[3] David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf, John David Pleins, and Astrid B. Beck, eds. in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992, Vol. 4, 266.
[4]Albert Barnes. Notes on the New Testament: Luke & John. Edited by Robert Frew. London: Blackie & Son, 1884–1885, 115.
[5] H. Gressmann, Vom reichtn Mann und armen Lazarus: eine literargeschichtliche Studie
(Abhandlungen der königlich preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften:
Philosophisch-historische Klasse, 1918 no. 7; Berlin: Verlag der königlich Akademie
der Wissenschaft, 1918).
[6] Ronald F. Hock, “Lazarus and Micyllus: Greco-Roman Backgrounds to Luke 16:19-31,” JBL, Vol. 106, no. 3 (1987), pp. 463.
[7] Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus: A Survey of Jesus and the Gospels. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020, 291-292.
[8] Richard Bauckham, “The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses,” Supplements to Novum Testamentum, Vol. 93, (1998), 103.
[9] Nicholas Perrin, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Edited by Eckhard J. Schnabel. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. London: IVP, 2022, 320.
[10] Johnathan Robinson, “A great chasm has been fixed”: The Topography of Luke 16:19-31 in Greco-Roman context, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Vol. 35, Issue 1, (2025), pp. 24-42.
[11] Kidner, Derek. Psalms 1–72: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973, 78.
[12] James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Luke. Edited by D. A. Carson. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.; Nottingham, England: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; Apollos, 2015, 469.
[13] Leon Morris, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 272.
[14] Reuben Bredenhof, Looking for Lazarus: Assigning Meaning to the Poor Man in Luke 16:19-31, New Testament Studies (2020): 51-68
[15] Craig A. Evans, Luke: Understanding the Bible Commentary Series, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011), 249.
[16] Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), 610.
[17] Mason, John G. Luke: An Unexpected God. Edited by Paul Barnett. Second Edition. Reading the Bible Today Series. (Sydney, South NSW: Aquila Press, 2019), 233.
