Rich Man and Lazarus: Summary, Bible Verse, and Meaning

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The core message of Jesus’ ministry revolves around the proclamation of the coming Kingdom of God. In the Synoptic Gospels, this Kingdom is predominantly depicted as a future reality — a time when God will offer complete restoration and abundant life to all who have repented in preparation for its arrival. 

Jesus often communicated his teachings through parables — brief, vivid stories designed to convey profound spiritual truths in simple terms. According to the Gospel of Mark 4:33-34, Jesus taught the masses almost exclusively in parables, using these narratives as a way to communicate deeper insights into the Kingdom of God.

Among these, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus stands out as particularly intriguing. But here’s a question worth asking: Can we be confident that the historical Jesus, the man who lived and preached in first-century Palestine, actually spoke these words?

Or could this parable, like others, have been shaped and reshaped by later Christian communities, perhaps reflecting their concerns more than the original teachings of Jesus? After all, the layers of tradition and interpretation surrounding Jesus can sometimes obscure what he might have truly said.

If that piques your curiosity, you’re not alone! Scholars have wrestled with these questions for centuries. In this article, we’ll tag along and take a closer look at the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus by analyzing it from a scholarly, historical perspective. 

We’ll begin by summarizing the story and exploring its place within the Gospels. From there, we’ll delve into the exegetical issues surrounding the parable, asking questions about its meaning and whether the Lazarus in this story is the figure raised from the dead in the Gospel of John.

Finally, we’ll engage in a historical-critical analysis, considering whether people can reliably attribute this parable to the historical Jesus or if it may have been a later addition by the early Christian community.

An important note before we begin! If you're keen to explore Jesus' parables from a broader perspective, we have an excellent blog post (and, dare I say, a truly enlightening one) that offers a bird's-eye view of all the parables mentioned in the New Testament Gospels.

Rich Man and Lazarus: Summary of the Story

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (often called the parable of Dives and Lazarus) is unique in that it appears only in the Gospel of Luke (16:19-31). The term “Dives” (Latin for “rich man”) was used in medieval tradition to refer to the unnamed wealthy character in the story. While many of Jesus' parables are found in multiple Gospels, this story is a distinct part of Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ teachings.

It’s important to note that the Gospel of Luke was likely written between 50 and 60 years after the death of Jesus, making it one of the later texts in the New Testament. Furthermore, despite tradition, the author of this Gospel probably wasn’t Luke, the companion of Paul.

Instead, the Gospel was composed by an anonymous Christian probably living outside of Palestine, who used earlier oral and written sources to craft and develop his narrative about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

In the parable, Jesus tells the story of a rich man who lived in luxury and a poor man named Lazarus who suffered in poverty at the rich man’s gate. Despite Lazarus’ desperate condition, the rich man, “loaded with gold and clad in purple” (to use a famous quote from Italian poet Petrarch), ignored him and refused to offer him any help or relief from his misery. 

When both men die, Lazarus is carried by angels to the side of Abraham, while the rich man finds himself in torment in Hades.

From his place of suffering, the rich man pleads with Abraham to send Lazarus to offer him relief, but Abraham explains that a great chasm separates them, making it impossible for anyone to cross between the two realms. 

The rich man then begs Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his family, but Abraham responds that they already have Moses and the Prophets — if they do not listen to them, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.

And because we are, as always, amazing (and know you’d rather not hunt down your Bible app just to read this story), here’s the full text of the parable (NIV translation): 

It truly is a captivating story, rich with vivid imagery and stark contrasts between the fate of the rich man and Lazarus.

But how are we to understand this parable? What deeper meaning lies behind the story of the rich man’s torment and Lazarus’ comfort? And perhaps most pressing, how do scholars today interpret the narrative? Let’s now explore these questions and dive into the scholarly analysis of this fascinating parable!

Rich Man and Lazarus: The Meaning Behind the Story

As mentioned, unlike other parables found across the Synoptic Gospels, this story is only present in Luke’s Gospel. As it turns out, it reflects his particular thematic concern with wealth, poverty, and social justice. 

Luke’s narrative repeatedly emphasizes the dangers of riches and the responsibility of the wealthy to care for the poor, and this parable encapsulates those concerns. 

The story contrasts the fates of a nameless rich man and a poor man named Lazarus, offering a vivid picture of reversal in the afterlife that aligns with Luke’s broader theological framework of divine justice and care for the marginalized.

In examining the character of Lazarus, it’s significant that this is the only parable that names a person. Both Michael Wolter and Arland J. Hultgren point out the importance of Lazarus' name, which is derived from the Hebrew “El-azar,” meaning “God has helped.”

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

As Arland J. Hultgren notes in The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary, the choice of name underscores that Lazarus’ only source of help and hope is God.

He is destitute, lying at the gate of the rich man’s mansion, covered in sores and longing for scraps from the rich man’s table. His pitiful state is further emphasized by the imagery of dogs licking his wounds — a sign of extreme degradation and helplessness. 

Michael Wolter, in The Gospel According to Luke, expands on this by highlighting that Lazarus isn’t only poor but represents a broader social and religious reality in Luke’s Gospel — he is one of the “least,” who are neglected by those with power and privilege.

The rich man, though not explicitly portrayed as wicked, is indifferent to Lazarus’ plight, reflecting a societal indifference that Luke repeatedly critiques. 

The reversal of their fates in the afterlife, where Lazarus is comforted in Abraham’s bosom while the rich man suffers in torment, drives home Luke’s message that divine justice upends earthly status, rewarding the poor and humble while punishing those who, due to their rich status, were forgetting the destitute.

The significance of Lazarus’ name also invites reflection on the broader theological meaning of the parable. Both Wolter and Hultgren emphasize that Lazarus, though never helped by others in life, is ultimately helped by God. This aligns with Luke’s theme that God is the defender of the poor and oppressed, a motif also found in Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1:52-53) where God is said to lift the lowly and bring down the mighty.

The name Lazarus, therefore, serves as a symbolic reminder that, even when human help fails, God’s justice will prevail in the end.

In conclusion, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is, essentially, a profound warning against the dangers of wealth and the callousness that often accompanies it. It critiques the kind of indifference embodied by the rich man, whose failure to see Lazarus as a fellow human being worthy of compassion leads to his eternal separation from God’s mercy. 

As Hultgren argues, the parable does more than advocate for private charity. It challenges the systemic and personal barriers that separate the wealthy from the poor, thus urging readers to heed the teachings of Moses and the prophets, which, according to Luke, call for justice and care for the needy.

But as compelling as this parable is, it leaves us with a fascinating question: Did the historical Jesus truly utter these words? Or is this a story crafted by early Christians to reflect their growing concerns about wealth and justice? Let’s now turn our attention to the question of historicity and explore whether historians can reliably trace this parable back to Jesus himself.

The Story of the Rich Man and Lazarus: The Issue of Historical Authenticity

For decades, historians have employed what is known as the criteria of authenticity in their efforts to determine which sayings or stories can be attributed to the historical Jesus and which are likely post-Easter productions of the early Church.

The first time I encountered these criteria was during my graduate studies. It was during that time that I gained deeper insights into literary theories (for those scholarly inclined, check out Hans R. Jauss’ works), sociological and psychological approaches to both collective and personal memories and historical methodology. 

Perhaps because of that, I quickly grew skeptical about the possibility of drawing clear lines between what was “authentic” and what wasn’t. As I discovered, I wasn’t alone in this skepticism. Dale C. Allison Jr., for instance, shares a similar hesitation.

In his thought-provoking book, Constructing Jesus, he writes:

This brings us to the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. Can we say with any certainty that this parable came from the historical Jesus? Or is it a post-Easter addition by the early Church? 

Both Michael Wolter and Arland J. Hultgren offer valuable insights into this question, but their conclusions differ slightly. Wolter, in his Commentary on Luke, is cautious. He notes that the absence of this parable in the other Gospels complicates its historical authentication. 

Without synoptic parallels or clear evidence from the “Q” source, Wolter leans toward the possibility that the story may have originated within the early Christian community, reflecting Luke’s thematic focus on wealth and social justice. 

In other words, he stops short of decisively linking it to the historical Jesus, thus emphasizing the uncertainties surrounding its tradition-historical origin.

On the other hand, Arland J. Hultgren provides a slightly more optimistic view in The Parables of Jesus: A Commentary. He acknowledges that while the parable might have undergone some Christian reworking — especially in the second part, which mentions resurrection — the core message about wealth, poverty, and the reversal of fortunes could still align with Jesus’ original teachings.

Hultgren suggests that, while the parable has likely been shaped by early Christian concerns, there’s no compelling reason to rule out its origin with Jesus. He leans toward attributing the story, or at least its nucleus, to the historical Jesus.

Bart D. Ehrman is another prominent scholar who weighs in on this debate. But he offers a more definitive stance in his book Heaven and Hell. To be more precise, he argues that the reference to resurrection in the second part of the parable indicates it’s a later Christian addition.

Ehrman states:

Ehrman’s view highlights a key point: The mention of resurrection seems to presuppose knowledge of Jesus’ fate. That undoubtedly places at least this element of the parable in the post-Easter context. So, I tend to agree with this perspective.

It’s likely that the reference to someone rising from the dead reflects early Christian teaching and was added as the story was passed on orally. Or perhaps, Luke added it while composing his narrative!

However, it’s difficult to be sure whether the first part of the parable — focused on the reversal of fortunes between the rich man and Lazarus — originated with Jesus himself. It’s entirely possible that the historical Jesus told a version of this parable that was later expanded to include post-resurrection themes.

And here’s the rub: People often want clear, decisive answers to these historical questions, but the truth is that ancient history rarely provides such tidy conclusions. Sometimes, as with this parable, we are left with a tantalizing mix of “possibly authentic” and “possibly not authentic,” and that’s just the nature of the beast!

Conclusion

The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a complex narrative that reveals Luke’s deep concern with issues of wealth, poverty, and divine justice. Whether or not this parable originated with the historical Jesus remains a subject of scholarly debate.

Some argue that the core message about social justice and the reversal of fortunes may align with Jesus' original teachings, while others see the references to resurrection as a clear indicator of early Christian influence.

Ultimately, this story offers a profound warning against indifference to the suffering of others, regardless of its precise origins. In other words (and I’m stepping outside of my historical shoes here), the enduring power of this parable lies not in its authenticity but in its timeless call for compassion and justice. 

However, if you want to get back to the scholarly analysis (which is always amazing) of the origins of Christianity, I highly recommend taking a look at Bart D. Ehrman’s online course “The Unknown Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”

Through eight captivating lectures, Dr. Ehram takes you on a journey, exploring the historical authenticity of many of the stories found in the New Testament Gospel. It’s a great opportunity to find out first-hand how historians approach these documents and uncover history under the layers of myth and tradition.