MyCIT Latest Message Home

Economics of the Afterlife (Luke 16)

Sunday September 27, 2026 · Nigel Tomes (PhD Econ.)

#3: Luke 16:14-17, 19-31

Bible Reading: Luke 16:14-17, 19-31

14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and scoffing at him. 15 And he told them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the sight of others, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.

16 “The Law and the Prophets were until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urgently invited to enter it. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out…

The Rich Man and Lazarus

19 “There was a rich man who would dress in purple and fine linen, feasting lavishly every day. 20 But a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, was lying at his gate. 21 He longed to be filled with what fell from the rich man’s table, but instead the dogs would come and lick his sores. 22 One day the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torment in Hades, he looked up and saw Abraham a long way off, with Lazarus at his side. 24 ‘Father Abraham!’ he called out, ‘Have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this flame!’

25 “‘Son,’ Abraham said, ‘remember that during your life you received your good things, just as Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here, while you are in agony. 26 Besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that those who want to pass over from here to you cannot; neither can those from there cross over to us.’

27 “‘Father,’ he said, ‘then I beg you to send him to my father’s house— 28 because I have five brothers—to warn them, so that they won’t also come to this place of torment.’

29 “But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said. ‘But if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “But he told him, ‘If they don’t listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:14-17, 19-31 CSB)

SUMMARY:

Every investor asks the same question: how can today's resources secure tomorrow? Last week's parable told us to invest our present wealth in "making friends" who'll welcome us in the age-to-come. This week, Jesus shows us a portfolio gone entirely wrong. A rich man spends lavishly on himself — purple linen, daily feasts — while Lazarus, destitute, lies unattended at his gate. At death, accounts are settled: Lazarus is carried to Abraham's side; the rich man finds himself impoverished in torment, separated by a fixed, uncrossable chasm. His failure wasn't extravagance itself — it was a total misallocation. He had the means, the opportunity, and the instruction (the Law and the Prophets) to invest in Lazarus. He committed nothing and got zero return. Death is the ‘market correction’ that exposes every account's true value.

So, examine your own portfolio: who is the ‘Lazarus at your gate’? What return are you expecting from relational investments --‘making friends who’ll welcome you in the next age’-- by using your time, attention, and wealth today?

  1. Economic Issues loom large in Luke’s Gospel
  • “The Gospel of Luke has more to say about economic realities, including poverty & wealth & the use of possessions, than any other NT document.” [Raymond Pickett, “Economic Relations & Human Flourishing in Luke,” Dialog, V. 52, #1 (2013) p. 37]
  • One “of Luke’s major themes [is] economic issues…but it is economics undeniably tied to eschatology [End-times].” [Stanley E. Porter, “Parable of the Unjust Steward,” in Bible in Three Dimensions, p. 136]
  • “There’s perhaps no parable that lays out the…economic themes of Luke…as starkly as the Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31) …It comes at the end of a chapter [16] stuffed full of economic material, including the Parable of the Unjust Steward.” [David DM. King, Reclaiming the Radical Economic Message of Luke, University of Denver, CO., USA (2019) p. 104]
  1. A Parable Pair
  • Parable #1 (Shrewd Manager);
  • Parable #2 (Rich Man & Lazarus)
  1. Don’t Interpret each Parable in isolation
  • “A common flaw of much parable interpretation has been to isolate individual parables and then to analyse them acontextually [out of context].” [Stanley E. Porter, “Parable of the Unjust Steward,” in Bible in 3 Dimensions, p. 134]
  • “Reading Luke 16 as a literary unity brings the two parables (the Rogue Steward & the Rich Man & Lazarus) together in such a way that…the latter serves as a perfect foil to…the former.” [Brendan Byrne, “Forceful Stewardship & Neglectful Wealth…Luke 16,” Pacifica, Vol. 1(1) (1988) p. 1]
  1. The Connections
    1. Same introductory Statement
    • These two parables are usually read as a deliberately matched pair, and Luke signals that with the parallel opening formula: "There was a rich man who had a manager" (16:1) and "There was a rich man…" (16:19) — nearly identical constructions in Greek. That's Luke cueing the reader to read them together. [ …]
    1. Interlocking Audiences
    • Parable #1: “Jesus said to the disciples…” (16:1) “The Pharisees…were listening to all these things” (16:14)
    • Parable #2 “The Pharisees…were listening…& scoffing at him. And he told them…” (16:14-15) 
    • “The parable of the steward & the subsequent instruction are addressed [‘to the disciples’ (16:1)]. At the same time, the Pharisees…belong to the audience (16:14) …Jesus…promotes among his followers the value of practicing material mercy. At the same time…he provokes the ‘money-loving’ Pharisees…with his teaching. This ultimately elicits a second direct exchange with his unrepentant opponents [the Pharisees] in 16:14-30.” [Anthony Giambrone, Sacramental Charity, p. 253]
    • “Coming… after a series of confrontations with the Pharisees, the parable is ostensibly told for their sake. But… any wealthy person neglectful of the poor is targeted by the… message.” [Reuben Bredenhof, Failure & Prospect, p. 38]
    • “The context of the [Rich Man & Lazarus] story within Luke is a sustained, polemical address to the Pharisees.” [David J. Powys, 'Hell': A Hard Look at a Hard Question, p. 222]
    1. Common Themes: Wealth, Stewardship, Afterlife, Reversal
    • “Luke’s theological themes…wealth & stewardship are joined in two parables found in Lk 16: unjust manager & poor man Lazarus. Both stories show the manner of converting terrestrial wealth and stewardship into [an advantageous situation in the next age]” [Ilie Melniciuc-Puică, “Stewardship & Wealth in Luke 16,” ceeol.com]
    • “Many persons, especially the rich, who assume they’ll…have the best seats at the messianic banquet, won’t even be let in, while those…’unworthy’ will have the places of honor.” [Michael Bird, Bird’s-Eye View of Luke-Acts, p. ]
    1. Two Main Characters: Master & Manager (Lk. 16:1-8); Rich Man & Poor Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31)
    2. Both set in two-ages—Present Age & the Age to Come (/Post-mortem)
    • Parable #1 End-Time: “When worldly wealth fails, [‘friends’] may welcome you into eternal dwellings.” (16:9)
    • Parable #2 Post-mortem: “Lazarus, “the poor man died…The rich man also died…” (16:22)
  2. Implications
    1. The ‘punchline’ of Parable #1 – “make friends” --is relevant to Parable #2 (Rich Man & Lazarus)
    • Financial-Relational transactions – “make friends…by means of worldly wealth”—link present and the eternal
    • “Make friends…using worldly wealth so that when it fails, they may welcome you into eternal dwellings.” (16:9)
    • “The well-attested ‘treasure in heaven’ concept (Lk. 12:33) …has morphed into a company of hospitable friends …Rather than blandly converting all charity into [heavenly] coinage –as though giving alms [charity] were really no more than making a transaction with a heavenly banker --…This re-conception humanizes… almsgiving from its financial component to the genuine personal exchange…Luke’s notion of ‘making friends’ [Lk. 16:9] supplies a reciprocal agency to the beneficiaries of one’s charity. Rather than standing… [at] ‘a full-service ATM [or, making a $$ e-transfer] …a direct conduit for transferring funds from an earthly to a heavenly account,’ a [personal] relationship is now contracted [facilitating] exchange between partners & the gap dividing rich & poor is bridged through an [End-time coinage].” [Anthony Giambrone, Sacramental Charity, p. 263]
    1. Evaluate the Rich Man (Parable #2) according to Parable #1 (Lk. 16:9)
    • “The thematic & verbal connections between Lk. 16:1-13 [Unjust/Dishonest Manager] & the parable of the rich man & Lazarus are clear…The [rich man’s] request for a miracle is denied [by Abraham], a word of warning having already been given in the parable of the unjust steward [Lk. 16:9].” [Stanley E. Porter, Op. cit., pp. 136-7]
    • Jesus’ “words in Luke 16:9 urge the audience to ‘make for themselves friends with dishonest wealth’ so as to assure entrance into eternal habitations…Clearly, the rich man in Lk 16:19-31 has failed in this regard. In [Luke’s] thought-world, the rich man’s punishment appears fully deserved …The rich man chose his side of the unsurpassable chasm. He failed to ‘make friends’ with Lazarus when he still had a chance. Now it is too late.” [Sławomir Szkredka, “Postmortem Punishment in…Lazarus & the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31),” Verbum Vitae, Vol. 36 (2019) p. 121]
  1. The Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31)
  1. Afterlife Portrayed? Historically Profound, Now Dismissed
  • “It’s difficult to underestimate the significance of…the Rich Man & Lazarus…within the biblical tradition.” –Matt. Hauge
  • Historically, “The afterlife description in the Rich Man and Lazarus has had [‘a profound impact’] on later Christian thought…The afterlife scene with consolation for the righteous, fiery torments for the wicked, and an insurmountable gulf in between …has had the strongest influence… The story served as the necessary Scriptural authority for imagining what the fate of the dead is like.” [Outi Lehtipuu, Afterlife Imagery in…the Rich Man & Lazarus, pp. 3-4]
  • However, “Most [contemporary] commentators emphasize that the purpose of the story is not to reveal anything about the conditions of the afterlife… ‘The parable is not…a description of the afterlife, warning people to be sure of their ultimate destination.’ (NT. Wright).” [Outi Lehtipuu, Op. cit., pp. 4-5]
  1. Death: the ‘Great Equalizer’ (Lk. 16:22)
  • “One day the poor man died…The rich man also died & was buried.” (Lk. 16:22) 
  • “Death is the great equalizer…because after death the one thing that counts is the human heart. Possessions & status symbols are left behind…The standards of the afterlife are different from those of the appearances of this world.” [Darrell Bock, Luke, p. 433]
  1. Afterlife: The Great Reversal (Lk. 16:19-26)
  • Richard “Bauckham argues that the parable…indicate[s] the reason for the reversal of fortune upon death, namely, God’s [End-time] justice in reversing the injustice of the present world.” [Joshua J. Stigall, Op. cit., pp. 37-38]
  • “The dominant theme in the first half of the parable is the complete reversal of roles in the next life… The great social disparity between the rich man & Lazarus is artfully described… At one extreme is the rich man…At the opposite extreme…is poor Lazarus….16:21-26 describe the great reversal between the rich man & poor Lazarus… [In the afterlife] The roles have completely & irreversibly reversed…The die is eternally cast. The great chasm is fixed…The reason: [the rich man is told: ‘remember that during your life you received your good things, just as Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here, while you are in agony’ (Lk. 16:25).” [Walter Pilgrim, Good News to the Poor, pp. 115-116]
  1. Luke 16’s Afterlife Depiction— Reality or Fantasy? The Parable depicts:
  1. Conscious existence after death — not ‘soul sleep.’
  1. NT contrast to OT Sheol: “The living know that they will die, but the dead don’t know anything.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5) 
  2. Both men are portrayed as aware, feeling (thirst, torment, comfort) after dying.
  • “The parable does depend for its plausibility & effectiveness on a general belief in conscious existence in a post-mortem state.” [Andrew T. Lincoln, “Heaven as Home in Christian Hope,” A. Jagt (ed.) Sort of Homecoming, p. 34]
  • “The story seems clearly to teach that, immediately after death, both believers & unbelievers have a conscious awareness of their eternal status & enter at once into either suffering or blessing.” [T. Schreiner, ESV Note Luke 16:22-23]
  1. The Rich Man was ‘buried;’ his body is in the tomb (16:22); now a disembodied soul/spirit (Note: literary devices used)
  • “...Its details about the afterlife are graphic portrayals, not necessarily actual descriptions of the afterlife. This does not mean that there is no afterlife or no place like Hades. It means [for e.g.,] that the conversations are…the story’s literary means to depict the great chasm in the afterlife between the righteous in paradise [‘Abraham’s bosom’] and those in Hades.” [Darrell Bock, Luke, p. ]
  • There’s “obviously figurative language in [Lk. 16:19-31] …This occurs in the intermediate state, the individuals in this account are disembodied. Yet, the passage has the rich man asking Lazarus to dip…his finger in water… which…cannot be literally true for individuals lacking physical bodies.” [Alan W. Gore, 40 Questions on Heaven & Hell, p. 92]
  1. ‘Intermediate state’ (not yet eternity); It’s between death & the final judgment
  • This is explicitly not the final judgment. The rich man's 5 brothers are still alive; he wants to warn them before it's too late. The ‘geography’ is the waiting [intermediate] state prior to resurrection/final judgment, not the End-time itself.
  • Darrell “Bock thinks that the parable may point to immediate consciousness after death and that…judgment & glorified resurrection comes later. [i.e., it’s the ‘intermediate state’].” --Thomas Shepherd
  • “Early Judaism & Christianity both presupposed an ‘intermediate state’ after death…followed by a resurrection at the end.” –NT. Wright
  • The Rich Man, "and Lazarus experience preliminary blessing [Lazarus] and punishment [rich man] and await the resurrection, when the souls in Hades will be united with their bodies to stand in the last judgment. This was the view held in the church until about AD. 200. " [Andrew J. Mattill, Luke & the Last Things, p. 31]
  1. What its Not About –Not Heaven vs Hell; Not Saved by Faith vs Not Saved
  • Lazarus is not in ‘Heaven’; the Rich Man is not in ‘Hell’ (Heb. Gehenna; lake of fire); he is in ‘Hades’ (16:23)
  • Not Saved by Faith vs Not Saved: “In this parable, Lazarus was saved by the grace of God through his faith. The rich man was condemned because he rejected the message of Scripture. Abraham emphasized to the rich man that it was faith, not proof, that was needed to get us into heaven.” [Steve James, Shareable Parables…, Lesson 9] Note: There’s no indication in Luke 16 that Lazarus had saving faith, nor that the lack of saving faith resulted in the rich man’s fate.
  1. Contrasting Afterlife Destinations; a compartmentalized intermediate state:
  • “The parable suggests… that behaviour in this life has eternal consequences. It may also suggest that Jesus believed, as did some other Jews, the…punishment & reward began immediately after death.” [Ben Witherington, Op. cit., p. ]
  • “The [Lk. 16] parable… depicts the immediate separation of the righteous & sinners upon death, the [righteous] granted a period of rest & the [sinners] subject to a period of preliminary punishment. The period of separation… in Hades, does not preclude a future resurrection of both the righteous & sinners for a final judgment & eternal disposition of their respective fates… This…support[s] the view that both [men] are depicted …as existing in an intermediate state in Hades before …the final judgment… suffering preliminary punishments…[&] enjoying rest in Abraham’s bosom.” [John A. Szukalski, Tormented in Hades, pp. 14-5]
  • “Jesus himself goes to the realm of the dead [‘Hades’] but is not left to corrupt [Acts 2:27-32]. If the One [Jesus] that the faithful follow goes to the Hades, what prevents the [faithful] to go there too at death? To say the least, the righteous went to Hades in the New Testament.” [D. Berchie, S. Dakio, “Lk. 16:19-31: Intermediate State of the Soul,” Philosophy Study, V. 5, #2 (2015) p. 117]
  • Note: Revelation treats Hades as explicitly temporary. At the final judgment, "Death & Hades were thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:14) — Hades itself gets emptied & abolished. That's a strong signal that Hades is not the same thing as final Hell (Gehenna); Hades is a holding state, not the eternal destiny (a pre-trial ‘police jail,’ not a post-trial ‘prison’).
  • Lazarus is carried to "Abraham's bosom” (or ‘Abraham's side’) a place of honor/comfort (16:25)
  1. Possibility of Punishment (Torment) in Hades after Death (Lk. 16:23)
  • The rich man in Hades (in torment; Lk. 16:23).
  • “What is clear is that [‘Hades’] designates a place of punishment for the unrighteous.” [Robert H. Stein, Luke, p. 307]
  • “Perhaps the most striking image in…the [parable] is the rich man’s torment in Hades…It is also the most obvious connection between the parable &…the place of punishment. Many scholars view this reversal of fortune from a life of luxury to an afterlife of agony as the primary message of the parable. In this way, the possibility of postmortem punishment is important for interpreting the…Rich Man & Lazarus.” [Joshua J. Stigall, Op. cit., pp. 207-8]
  1. A fixed, uncrossable barrier between the two — "a great chasm has been fixed" (Lk. 16:26).
  • Lk. 16:26 “makes very clear that there can be no reversal of the reversal once one dies & is in the afterlife. There is no ‘shuttle service’ from Hades to Abraham’s place, only a great chasm fixed by God between the two otherworldly destinations.” [Ben Witherington, Jesus & Money, p. ]
  1. Is Luke 16 reliable information about the Afterlife? A Century of Scholars said “NO”
  1. No. It reflects popular notions-- Julicher (1889)
  • Julicher (1889) “The depiction of the afterlife in the parable did not correspond to Jesus’ own thinking, but rather reflected popular notions about post-mortem existence…not [relevant] to the parable’s central message.” [John A Szukalski, Tormented in Hades, p. 6]
  1. No. Rich Man & Lazarus derives from an Egyptian Folktale –Hugo Gressmann (1918)
  • “At the turn of the century [1918] Hugo Grossmann identified several versions of a popular folk tale, known both in Egypt & Palestine which depicted the reversal of fates for the rich man & a beggar in the underworld after their deaths. This is all the more reason for not deriving systematic theology from this imagery! What Jesus contributed…was the addition to the story…Lk. 16:27-31. Here [in the 2nd half] are the themes which Jesus wanted to emphasize, & his use of a well-known story in the first part…made his additions …much more striking & effective.” [Craig Blomberg, Interpreting the Parables, pp. 86-87]
  • “Gressmann’s [1918] identification of the [Egyptian folktale] as the probable background of the parable has possibly been the most influential interpretation of the parable.” [Joshua J. Stigall, Reading the Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus…as the Authorial Audience, Baylor University, TX, USA (2012) p. 18]
  • Hugo “Gressmann’s [1918] proposal maintained its credibility among scholars for nearly seven decades… ‘Since [1918] scholars have looked to an Egyptian folktale for the background…& for the interpretation of details in the parable’ (Hock)…The search for a parallel to the parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus…[which] occupied scholars through much of the 20th century [was] largely unsuccessful…” [John A Szukalski, Tormented in Hades, pp. 9, 19]
  • “Since Gressmann… drew attention to one important example of [Afterlife folktales] – the Egyptian story of Setme & Si-Osiris (together with later Jewish stories derived from it) – much discussion of the parable has been dominated by this one parallel. Both the way in which this parallel has been used in the interpretation of the parable & the restriction of interest to this one parallel have had unfortunate consequences.” [Richard Bauckham, “Rich Man & Lazarus: Parable & the Parallels,” NTS, Vol. 37 (1991) p. 255]
  1. NO ‘Foreign Afterlife Imagery was Imported’ into Luke’s Theology?
  • The afterlife “doctrine in the [Lk. 16] story is a borrowing from a pre-Christian folktale & carries no weight in itself…‘This imported story stands isolated [from] references…to the future resurrection of the just (& the unjust)’ (Maddox).” [Outi Lehtipuu, Afterlife Imagery in…the Rich Man & Lazarus, p. 238]
  • Note: Under the Gressmann paradigm, the afterlife imagery was treated as foreign, imported material — which meant it could be, and regularly was, held at arm's length from Luke's own theology. The clearest statement of this move is Robert Maddox, “It is no more necessary to believe that Luke took this [afterlife]…description literally than it is to believe…[that] Saint Peter [is] gate-keeper of the ‘pearly gates’…” [Robert Maddox, Purpose of Luke-Acts, p. 103] This is important because, if the story was s ‘foreign import,’ its afterlife content could be bracketed off as non-representative — of Jesus' teaching, of Luke's theology, and by extension of first-century Jewish belief generally
  • “If the afterlife imagery [in Lk. 16] can be shown to be non-biblical in origin, then it and the socio-economic critique and ethical implications contained therein can also be ignored by society as somehow non-normative and non-binding…” [John A Szukalski, Tormented in Hades, p. 19]
  • “It has been argued …that we can learn nothing about Jesus’ understanding of Hades from the Parable… Gregory Crofford… stated ‘Jesus’ story is a cautionary tale meant for this life & is not a road map to the next’ [life].“ (Gregory Crofford, Dark Side of Destiny, p. 24).” [R. Harper, “Hades in Revelation,” in C. Date, Consuming Passion, p. 192]
  1. Rebuttal: 1. Jesus’ Parable is not a ‘foreign, Egyptian folktale’ repurposed for the Pharisees
    • 2. Luke 16 Shares Afterlife Imagery with 2nd Temple Jewish Literature (1 Enoch 22)
    • The decisive reframing…comes with the rise of Enoch scholarship. George Nickelsburg’s commentary 1 Enoch 1 (2001), places the parable's cosmology directly alongside 1 Enoch 22 — the vision of 4 hollow compartments ‘in the west’ where the dead await judgment, already sorted by their righteousness. Nickelsburg's assessment is that the parable is an example of the early Christian use of 1 Enoch 22 — the cosmology of the parable differs somewhat in details, but not in its function. This reclassifies the parable's imagery from isolated foreign borrowing to participant in a known, native Jewish apocalyptic tradition.
    • The closest formal parallel to Luke 16 is 1 Enoch 22 which has the same basic idea of a divided holding-place with a barrier, prior to final judgment.
    • “Luke has handed down to us Enoch’s popular conception of Hades as a divided intermediate state, with Lazarus in the happy side, which includes Abraham’s bosom & the fountain of magical, living water, & Dives [the rich man] in the unhappy side, separated by a great chasm. Here Dives [the rich man] & Lazarus experience preliminary blessing & punishment & await the resurrection, when the souls in Hades will be united with their bodies to stand in the last judgment.” [AJ Mattill, Luke and the Last Things, p. 31)]
    • “There was an impenetrable barrier between the rich man & Lazarus. A possible background for the uncrossable divide may be found in 1 Enoch 22.” [GW. Knight, “Luke 16: Rich Man & Lazarus,” Review & Expositor, V. 94(2) (1997) p. ]
    • The Luke 16 parable “is based on the revelatory traditions in 1 Enoch” [George Nickelsburg, “Revisiting the Rich & the Poor in 1 Enoch 92-105 & the Gospel [of] Luke,” in J. Neusner (ed.) G. Nickelsburg in Perspective, V. 2, p. 569]
    • “The extent of the parallels between the two works [--Luke 16 & Enoch-- is such] that it seems very likely that there is some form of literary relationship between the Greek text of 1 Enoch and the Third Gospel [Luke], most notably in passages…such as the parable of the Rich Fool & the parable of Dives [the Rich Man] & Lazarus.” [Andrew Gregory, “Heavenly Mysteries & Earthly Riches,” in K. Sullivan (ed.) Open Mind, p. 136]
    • Correspondences between Luke 16 (Rich Man & Lazarus) and 1 Enoch 22
    • 'Abraham's bosom' where Lazarus is, & 'this place of torment' where [the Rich Man] is, represent respectively the blessed and unblessed section of Hades. The fact that they are separated by an unbridgeable gulf does not speak against their being temporary abodes as is shown by 1 Enoch 22 where the intermediate state is in view. A further argument for the view that Luke 16:19-31 refers to the intermediate state derives from the strong similarities between this Lucan passage and 1 Enoch 22 which refers to the intermediate state of souls between death & judgment. According to 1 Enoch 22:8-12 Hades is divided into compartments ("hollow places') for the righteous & wicked souls. We find a similar division between the abode of the good Lazarus & the wicked rich man, for according to Luke 16:16 "a great gulf" (‘Chasma mega’) separates Lazarus from Dives. It is noteworthy that the expression ‘Chasma mega,’ which occurs only here in the entire NT, is found also in 1 Enoch 18:11 where it denotes an abyss where souls are punished. 1 Enoch 22:3-4 speaks of…’hollow places’ in which are kept the souls of the dead until the day of judgment. In the compartment for the spirits of the righteous is found "a bright spring of water" (1 Enoch 22:9; cf. 22:2). In Luke 16:24 we learn that there is water in the place where Lazarus is, since Dives requests Abraham to send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water to cool his tongue. Against this background of 1 Enoch 22:9, [The Rich Man,] Dives' request for water becomes more intelligible, since the water was found only in the compartment of the righteous. Also, if the water of 1 Enoch 22:2, 9, is the magical water of life mentioned in 1 Enoch 17:4, then this would satisfactorily explain how a single drop of water could completely quench Dives' thirst (Luke 16:24).” [J. Osei-Bonsu, “Intermediate State in Luke-Acts,” Irish Biblical Studies, Vol. 9, (1987) p. 122]
    • “In view of all these similarities, especially in the case of the [Gk.] words Chasma, Zoe, & Abyssos, [Chasm, lifetime, Abyss] it is likely that there is some relationship between Luke 16:19-31 and 1 Enoch 22, & that the Lucan passage, like 1 Enoch 22, refers to the intermediate state… For Luke Hades is the place where all the dead go (Acts 2:27f). The section for the righteous souls is called 'Abraham's bosom'…The wicked go to another section where they receive preliminary punishment before the final judgment after which they are thrown into Gehenna (Luke 12:4-5).” [J. Osei-Bonsu, Op. cit., p. 123]
    • “That the story of Lazarus & Dives [Rich man] refers to the intermediate state is clear from the use of the word [Hades] in Lk. 16:23 (not [Gehenna]) …In the NT ‘Hades’…is clearly presented as the intermediate abode of the dead in Rev. 20:13, 14 [etc.]) …Gehenna, on the other hand, is regarded as the place of punishment by means of eternal fire (Mt. 5:22 [etc.]) …The description of Lazarus & Dives in bodily terms in Hades doesn’t mean that they are in the final state with their bodies. They are described in bodily terms for… ‘there’s no other way…they can be visualized’ (Marshall). [From] the punishment of Dives in ‘this place of torment,’ we…observe that punishment was sometimes a feature of the intermediate state… ‘Abraham’s Bosom’, where Lazarus is, & ‘this place of torment’ where Dives is, represent…the blessed & unblessed sections of Hades.” [Joseph Osei-Bonsu, “Intermediate State in the NT,” Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 44, #2 (1991) pp. 173-5]
    • ‘In 1 Enoch souls after death are subject to different circumstances even before the last judgment. They are assigned to different compartments: with a spring of water in the first one only, in that of the righteous… The access to water & quality (clearness, taste) of water play…an important role in the rewards & punishments…[so,] the reference to abundant water of perfect quality in the hollow of the righteous in 1 Enoch 22:9 (as opposed to the absence of water in other compartments) [is highly significant].’ [Ekaterina Matusova, “Post-Mortem Divisions of the Dead in 1 Enoch 22:1-13,” in B. Ego (ed.) Evil & Death, pp. 164-5] 
    • “The idea of the places (hollows) where the souls are confined after death in the expectation of the last judgment & the principle according to which the souls are categorized draw on the biblical interpretation, particularly…Isaiah …The themes connected with the post-mortem circumstances in 1 Enoch should be interpreted in the biblical context.” [Ekaterina Matusova, Op. cit., p. ]
    • “George Nickelsburg concludes that the parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus is "an interesting example of the early Christian use of the kind of cosmology presumed [in 1 Enoch 22]. The cosmology of the parable differs somewhat…in details, but not in its function." [George Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch (2001), p. 307] 
  2. Are the Unrighteous Punished in Hades, immediately after Death?
  • “When unbelievers die…their spirits [& souls] immediately experience separation from God and punishment for their sins…” [ESV Study Bible, “End of Life,” p. 2542]
  • The Luke 16 parable is consistent with the NT's two-stage individual eschatology (intermediate state immediately after death; resurrection & final judgment occur later –at the End of the Age). Most evangelical scholars treat Luke 16’s core claim — immediate, conscious, morally-differentiated post-mortem existence — as its real theological teaching.
  1. Doctrines shouldn’t be based on Parables Alone
  • Scholars caution against deriving definitive doctrines solely from parables:
  • “One dare not derive doctrine from the details of a parable unless it can be corroborated by less metaphorical teachings elsewhere in Scripture.” [Craig Blomberg, “Form Criticism,” JB. Green (ed.) Dictionary of Jesus & the Gospels, p. 245]
  • “We do not take the parables as sources of doctrine, but rather we take doctrine as a norm for interpreting the parables.” –Tertullian, [Peter Gurry, “Is the Rich Man & Lazarus a Parable?” Gospel Coalition, (March 28, 2019)]
  • Vernon Doerksen writes, "Parables should not be considered primary sources of doctrine. Doctrine may be illustrated and confirmed by parables, but one must be careful to check the interpretation with the whole body of inspired Scripture." [Vernon D. Doerksen, "Interpretation of Parables," Grace Theological Journal, Vol. 11.2 (1970) p. 17]
  1. Scriptural Support: “keep the unrighteous under punishment ‘til the day of judgment." (2 Pet. 2:9)
  • 2 Peter 2:9 —the Lord "knows how to... keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment." This is arguably the single strongest supporting text: it explicitly describes an ongoing, present punishment ("keep... under punishment," a present participle in the Greek) that continues until a future day of judgment — exactly the two-stage structure the parable implies.
  • “The majority of translations & a number of commentators understand it to refer to punishment in the intermediate state. In favor of this view is the fact that this is the most natural translation of the present participle. It also seems to fit well with [2 Pet. 2:]4 where the fallen angels are said to be cast into ‘Tartarus’ – a Hellenistic picture of incarceration in the lowest part of the underworld. Thirdly, the view is consistent with Jewish beliefs that the unrighteous proceed to conscious punishment between death & final judgment (1 Enoch 22:10-11; 4 Ezra 7:79-80).” [Ralph Cunnington, “A re-examination of the Intermediate State of Unbelievers,” Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 82.3 (2010) p. 232]
  • “From a literary perspective, 2 Peter 2:9 needs to be interpreted in terms of 2 Peter 2:4, in which the disobedient angels are …currently cast into hell [Tartarus] and committed to pits of darkness…[Douglas] Moo also agrees that…God’s punishment [is] currently administered to sinful angels (2 Peter 2:4) [where]…the combination…of present, preliminary punishment and future, final judgment is found’ (Moo).” [Dongsu Kim, Perseverance & Apostasy in the NT, pp. 306-7]
  • “The NT…teaching on the intermediate state…The NT says little about the condition of the ungodly between death and resurrection…[Luke 16] depicts the rich man as suffering torment in Hades [immediately] after death. Perhaps the clearest NT passage dealing with the state of the ungodly during the intermediate state is 2 Peter 2:9, ‘The Lord knows how…to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment’ (NIV). Peter has been expounding the severity of divine judgment over the angels that sinned…According to 2 Peter 2:4 God cast the angels that sinned into Hell (Gk. Tartarus) to be kept until judgment. In 2 Pet. 2:9 Peter is speaking about unrighteous men. These, he says, God knows how to keep or hold under punishment until the Day of Judgment –literally, ‘while being punished.’ The Greek word used here, kolazomenous, is a present passive participle from the verb kolazo, to punish. The present tense …conveys the thought that this punishment is a continuing one. The words… ‘until or for the Day of Judgment,’ tell us that [this] is not the final judgment of the ungodly, but a punishment which precedes the judgment day. It cannot be maintained that the punishment here…is administered only during this present life, since… ‘until the Day of Judgement’ clearly extends the punishment until that day. This passage, therefore, confirms…the Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus…that the ungodly undergo punishment…between their death & the Day of Judgment.” [Anthony A. Hoekema, Bible & the Future, pp. ]
  • W. Grudem argues…that this passage confirms the conscious suffering of the unrighteous dead between death & the final judgment… “There is conscious punishment for unbelievers after they die…Unbelievers pass into a state of eternal punishment immediately upon death.” [Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, ch. 41, pp. 823-4] 
  • Robert Peterson…cites the 2 Peter 2 passage as further evidence that ‘the intermediate state is a state of real, active suffering for the ungodly’.” [Robert A. Peterson, Hell on Trial, p. ]
  1. What Went Wrong? Why Did the Rich Man end up in Torment in Hades?
  1. He and We have the Law and the Prophets
  • “The importance of the Law (& the Prophets) is highlighted by…reference to the Law (& the Prophets) [as] a bookend around the parable: “it is easier for heaven & earth to pass away than for one stroke of…the law to drop out.” (16:17) Abraham “told him, ‘If they don’t listen to Moses & the prophets, they’ll not be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.’” (16:31) [Joshua J. Stigall, Op. cit., p. 238]
  • “The parable of the rich man & Lazarus portrays the use of possessions as the litmus test of…membership in the household of faith.” [Karen M. Hatcher, “In Gold We Trust,” Review & Expositor, Vol. 109, #2 (2012) p. 277]
  • In Lk. 16:16-17 “Jesus makes a pronouncement of major significance…John the Baptist…brings to a conclusion the preparatory era of ‘the Law & the prophets’…. Nevertheless, the promises & obligations…in the Law continue to be in force… The Rich Man is told…that [his 5 brothers] should read Moses & the Prophets.” [HC. Kee, Beginnings…, p. 153]
  1. The Rich Man’s Sin of Omission – he should have ‘made friends’ with Lazarus
  • “Every Jew knew the OT commanded the compassionate use of riches, so the [rich] man had no excuse for his wanton neglect of [Lazarus] whom he regularly saw & could have helped easily.” [C. Blomberg Interpreting…Parables, p. 205]
  • “Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE) … argu[ed] that the rich man’s sin was not merely his wealth but his failure to exercise charity…the sin of omission—failing to help Lazarus. He also linked the parable to Christian ethical teachings about the proper use of wealth & the need for social responsibility…Wealth should be viewed as a gift from God to be used in service to others.” [Maikon Borba, “Parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus…,” Harding School of Theology (2025) p. 3]
  • “The rich man…should have ‘made friends’ with the poor man at his door.” --Anthony Giambrone
  • Although “the basis for judgment between the two men is not made explicit, the rich man’s sin of omission needs no explaining. The helpless state of the poor man [Lazarus] [in the context of] Lk. 16:9 & 14:12-14 [means] the case is unmistakable. The rich man has banqueted in too exclusive a company, & instead of entertaining himself & his brothers, he should have ‘made friends’ with the poor man at his door.” [Anthony Giambrone, Sacramental Charity, p. 267]
  • Jesus’ “words in Luke 16:9 urge the audience to ‘make for themselves friends with dishonest wealth’ so as to assure entrance into eternal habitations…Clearly, the rich man in Lk 16:19-31 has failed in this regard. In [Luke’s] thought-world, the rich man’s punishment appears fully deserved …The rich man chose his side of the unsurpassable chasm. He failed to ‘make friends’ with Lazarus when he still had a chance. Now it is too late.” [Sławomir Szkredka, “Postmortem Punishment in…Lazarus & the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31),” Verbum Vitae, Vol. 36 (2019) p. 121]
  1. Lend &/or Give to your Poor & Needy Brother (Deut. 14)
  • 7 “If there is a poor person among you, one of your brothers within any of your city…do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. 8 Instead, you are to open your hand to him & freely loan him enough for whatever need he has… 10 Give to him, & don’t have a stingy heart when you give, & because of this the Lord your God will bless you in all your work & in everything you do. 11 For there will never cease to be poor people in the land; that’s why I’m commanding you, ‘Open your hand willingly to your poor & needy brother in your land.’ (Deut. 14:7-8, 10-11)
  • “The parable…provides a graphic portrait of the separate destinies of the righteous & wicked based on their conduct… Because of his disregard for the social justice that the Torah [OT] demands, the rich man faces ‘agony’ in the fiery flames of Hades (Lk. 16:24-25), while the poor man [Lazarus] ‘was carried …by the angels to be with Abraham’ (16:22). This emphasis on benevolence [charity towards neighbors in need] as the litmus test for elect status is critical in the parable, especially since heavenly rewards are part of the equation…God evaluates each person’s earthly conduct & then decides where to place them… Luke affirms [end-time] reversal, sinners face…grievous consequences for their callous disregard toward a neighbor in need.” [Samuel L. Adams, Social & Economic Life in 2nd Temple Judea, p. 200]
  1. Hosting a Dinner? Invite those who are poor, maimed, lame, blind –Jesus (Lk. 14:12-14)
  • Jesus told his Host: “When you give a lunch or a dinner, don’t invite your friends, your brothers or sisters, your relatives, or your rich neighbors, because they might invite you back, & you would be repaid. 13 On the contrary, when you host a banquet, invite those who are poor, maimed, lame, or blind. 14 And you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you; for you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.” (Luke 14:12-14 CSB)
  • “In Luke’s Gospel Jesus is concerned that his followers would use what they have for the benefit of the poor: If, when giving a feast, one invites the poor & disabled, he will be ‘repaid at the resurrection of the just’ (Lk. 14:13f) …Luke presents…sayings to the effect that those who do not use their wealth face exclusion from the kingdom of God or the coming age (6:24; 12:15; 16:19…). The rich man of Lk. 16:19ff had not done anything wicked; he had simply not done anything for the indigent, sick, & hungry man at his gate [i.e., Lazarus], while devoting his wealth to the satisfaction of his own desires. The respective fates of ‘Dives’ & Lazarus illustrate the Lukan…Beatitudes (Lk. 6:20, 24).” [Richard H. Hiers, “Friends by Unrighteous Mammon (Lk. 16:9),” pp. 33-34]
  1. Jesus: “Love Your Neighbor as Yourself” (Lk. 10:27-28)
  • A Scribe asked Jesus: “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 “What’s written in the law?” he asked…“How do you read it?” 27 He answered, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, & with all your mind,” and “your neighbor as yourself.” 28 “Jesus told him. “Do this & you will live.” (Lk. 10:25-28)
  1. Living Faith has Works and Words (James 2:15-17)
  • 15 If a brother or sister is without clothes & lacks daily food 16 & one of you says to them, “Go in peace, stay warm, & be well fed,” but you don’t give them what the body needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way faith, if it does not have works, is dead by itself.” (James 2:15-17)
  1. God’s Love in Believers results in their Giving (1 John 3:17)
  • “If anyone has this world’s goods and sees a fellow-believer in need but withholds compassion from him—how does God’s love reside in him?” (1 John 3:17). “Love is seen in believers responding to the needs of their brothers & sisters…Love must not merely be through words or talk but seen in action” [Mark J. Keown, Discovering the NT, p. 24]
  1. “Whatever you did for [them], you did for Me.” (Matt. 25:40)
  • 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, & he will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right & the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 “‘For I was hungry & you gave me something to eat; I was thirsty & you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger & you took me in; 36 I was naked & you clothed me; I was sick & you took care of me; I was in prison & you visited me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry & feed you, or thirsty & give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger & take you in, or without clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, & visit you?’ 40 “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers & sisters of mine, you did for Me.’ (Matt. 25:31-40)
  • Scot McKnight: "I'm reminded…of Jesus' parable…in Luke 16… The point of the parable was not to give us the right view of hell but to warn us about how we treat the poor. And that leads us to Matthew 25, & the final judgment based on how we treat those who are suffering... we are reminded over and over that God will judge us on how we live: compassionately or not, with justice or not, helping those in need or not." [Scot McKnight in a 2011 interview]
  1. A Generous & Growing Christian Community (Acts 2:44-47)
  • 44 Now all the believers were together and held all things in common. 45 They sold their possessions & property and distributed the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple, & broke bread from house to house. They ate their food with joyful & sincere hearts, 47 praising God & enjoying the favor of all the people. Every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.” (Acts 2:44-47)

Watch on YouTube PDFs Jesus' Journey to Jerusalem All past messages

‹ ›