Faith First Media

The Rich Man and Lazarus

by Dr. John H. Roller

You probably either saw or participated in a production of Thornton Wilder’s three-act play Our Town when you were in high school. According to Wikipedia, it “is, perhaps, the most frequently-produced play by an American playwright. The play is set in the fictional community of Grover’s Corners, modeled on several New Hampshire towns….Using meta-theatrical devices, the play is set in a 1930s theater. Through the actions of the Stage Manager, the town of Grover’s Corners is created for the audience and scenes from its history between the years of 1901 and 1913 play out…. It is a story of character development that details the interactions between citizens of an everyday town in the early twentieth century through their everyday lives.”

One of the “meta-theatrical devices” used in several scenes of Our Town is the series of “conversations” that take place in the Grover’s Corners cemetery – between the former residents of the town who are now deceased! The dead people are portrayed as remembering events from their own lives, observing events in the lives of the living characters and commenting on their feelings about both kinds of events. The ones who have been there longer, though, seem to be “fading away” – having more and more difficulty remembering their own lives (which were longer ago) and having less and less ability to “relate” to the lives of the living characters (some of whom they don’t even know, because they were born after they had died).

Of course, the “savvy” members of the audience are quite capable of understanding two important facts:

1) The entire play is a work of fiction. 2) The “conversations” that take place in the cemetery are understood to be a “meta-theatrical device” rather than a reflection of Thornton Wilder’s beliefs about what “life” in a cemetery is actually like. Unfortunately (in my opinion), most Bible students are not nearly as “savvy” when it comes to similar stories that happen to be told by Jesus Christ rather than by a twentieth-century American playwright.

The “classic” example is, of course, the tale of The Rich Man and Lazarus, recorded in Luke 16:19-31. In the King James Version, these verses appear as follows:

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And 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. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Opponents of the view I have been sharing in this series of E-Tracts (the “sleep” of the dead and the final destruction of the unsaved) insist that this passage is to be taken literally and that it teaches a conscious intermediate state and the everlasting conscious torment of the unsaved. I would, therefore, like to discuss three questions:

1) Should the passage be taken literally?

2) Does it teach a conscious intermediate state?

3) Does it teach the everlasting conscious torment of the unsaved?

First, should the passage be taken literally? It seems clear to me that, if taken literally, the passage teaches the following points:

a) When poor people die, angels carry them to a place called “Abraham’s bosom.”

b) When rich people die, they are buried.

c) After rich people are buried, they “wake up” in a place called “hell.”

d) People in hell have bodies with eyes, tongues and other organs.

e) It is possible to see “Abraham’s bosom” from hell, although it is far away.

f) It is possible for people in hell and people in “Abraham’s bosom” to talk to each other.

g) People in hell are tormented by fire.

h) People in hell think that a tiny drop of water would ease their torment.

i) Rich people go to hell because they had a good life on earth.

j) Poor people go to “Abraham’s bosom” because they had a bad life on earth.

k) Hell and “Abraham’s bosom” are separated by a great gulf that prevents travel.

l) People in hell think that people in “Abraham’s bosom” can be sent back to earth.

Few people would affirm the truth of most of these twelve statements, so I think it’s fair to conclude that few people really do believe the passage should be taken literally – even though that is what they claim to believe!

Second, does the passage teach a conscious intermediate state? Well, it would seem to – if taken literally! But we’ve just seen that it can’t be taken that way. In that case, how is it to be taken? I believe it should be taken symbolically. The various characters and statements in the story must REPRESENT something rather than being literal descriptions of what “life” is like in the “world of the dead” that people “go to” when they die. Rather than TEACHING a conscious intermediate state, the story IMAGINES a conscious intermediate state (like the one imagined by Thornton Wilder in Our Town) and describes an IMAGINARY conversation between two “characters” (the rich man and Abraham) who are both dead. This is a “meta-theatrical device” and it’s one that had been used for many centuries before Jesus Christ used it. Such “meta-theatrical devices” are found in Judges 9:8-15; 2 Samuel 12:1-4; 2 Samuel 14:1-24; Isaiah 14:3-23; Daniel 7:2-28; Zechariah 3:1-8. Many similar New Testament passages are also universally considered to be “parables” and, in many cases, they are explicitly called parables in the text. The entire Book of Revelation is written in this kind of symbolism. An incredible amount of false teaching about the future of this world has been based on trying to take its statements “literally” (though, just as with The Rich Man and Lazarus, it’s clear that no one REALLY wants to do that). If you are interested in learning how I believe this parable SHOULD be interpreted, please ask me to send you some further literature on this subject.

Third, does the passage teach the everlasting conscious torment of the unsaved? It most emphatically does not! The Rich Man and Lazarus makes no mention whatsoever of conditions in any world after the Second Coming of Christ. It’s all about the possibility of getting a message to the rich man’s “brothers” in the hope that they will then take steps to avoid going to “hell” when they die. After the Second Coming of Christ, there will be no unsaved “brothers” for anyone to take a message to! It will be too late by then! So, at most, this parable can only refer to “the intermediate state.” If it were to teach anything about “conscious torment” it would be teaching the TEMPORARY conscious torment of the unsaved during the intermediate state. But such torment would be contrary to all principles of justice, both human and divine, for it would involve punishment before judgment.

We must conclude, then, that those who oppose the view I have been sharing in this series of E-Tracts (the “sleep” of the dead and the final destruction of the unsaved) are insisting that this passage be taken in a way it clearly cannot be taken and that it be taken to teach doctrines it clearly does not teach. The fact that they are wrong about this passage should lead you to ask if maybe they are wrong about the entire subject of personal eschatology and if maybe the view I have been sharing is, after all, more consistent with the entire Bible.

For more information, contact:

Dr. John H. Roller

johnroller@faithbiblechristian.com