Preliminary remarks

What does the Bible say about “hell”? Proponents of hell like to point to the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The story is a good test of the principles of biblical exegesis. It seems to me that in order to enforce this story as “proof of hell” all exegetical rules must be thrown overboard. This is the only way to maintain a traditional view. But this becomes clear only when one looks more closely at the story and works on the text not from tradition but from context.

The following exegesis is not new and is not mine. I have compiled and reviewed what stays closest to the story and context when comparing a wide variety of interpretations. A simple search on the Internet will immediately reveal additional sources. In countless conversations I have presented this exegesis to proponents of a hell. Not once could this exegesis be refuted from the text or context. However, for dogmatic and ideological reasons, the interpretation has often been dismissed wholesale.

A self-critical examination of the text and one’s own understanding is indeed a challenge. However, it is not only a challenge, but also a privilege. We should grow up in the faith so that we will no longer be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine (cf. Eph. 4:14-15). This requires good differentiation and the courage to use theological explosives not to confuse but to build. That this cannot be taken for granted is shown by Paul’s repeated prayers for the churches for a “spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of himself” (Eph. 1:15-23). Because that’s what this story is about, too.

The rich man and Lazarus

This is the story as we read it in the Gospel of Luke:

“There was a certain rich man who dressed in purple and cambric and lived splendidly day after day in merriment. And there was a certain poor man named Lazarus, who was lying down with boils at the gate of it, desiring only to be filled with the refuse that fell from the rich man’s table. However, the stray dogs came and licked his boils.

Then it happened that the poor man died and was taken away by messengers – to Abraham’s bosom. But the rich man also died and was buried. When he was in agony in the unawakened, and lifted up his eyes, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Then he cried out, “Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering pain in this flame.

But Abraham answered: Child, remember that you received your good during your life and Lazarus equally received the evil; but now he is awarded here while you suffer pain. For all this, a great gulf is fixed between us and you, so that those who want to cross over to you from here cannot, nor those who want to cross over to us from there.”

Lk 16:19-31 (Concordant New Testament KNT)

Only here do we find this story. There is no other similar story in the whole Bible. Everything we read here is unique within the biblical books.

An image of the afterlife?

This story is not a picture of the afterlife or proof of a hell. There are several reasons for this, which are explored in this article.

These are the reasons:

• The text itself speaks of something quite different when we read it in context.
• The context shows that Jesus is not talking about the hereafter here, but quoting a story with the aim of explaining something completely different.

The important questions are: Why was this story told by Jesus, and what was explained? Whoever reads hell here must also deal with biblical exegesis. There are rules for this, which are also taught where hell is maintained. However, if one applies these rules, the whole doctrinal edifice falls apart. One quickly recognizes that the interpretation as “image of heaven and hell” cannot be so correct. But everything in turn.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus was a familiar story to the audience. It comes from the rabbinic tradition, which is historically proven. It is an extra-biblical story, a cultural reference. Jesus quotes the story to explain something quite different. Thus, this is a figurative language; the story is told as a parable.

But not everyone sees it that way. Many bypass the context and context and read here a “correct” description of the afterlife. At least parts of this story have to hold up as a description of hell. But a literal interpretation is selective. Even followers of this literal interpretation will not understand all elements of the story as “literal.” For example, Abraham’s bosom is a figurative language, and it will probably not be that we should all once literally end up in his bosom.

There are also clear inconsistencies: This story is transverse to the entire biblical testimony about an afterlife. Has Jesus now turned the Bible upside down? Or does he not explicitly refer to Moses and the prophets and ask us to believe them (Lk 16:29)? So why is there nothing there that remotely resembles the situation described here? Whichever way you turn it – this story has nothing to do with a hell, which becomes clear in the masses when you look into it more intensively. The story stands alone, and there are no parallel passages in the Bible, either to the individual statements or to the story as a whole. But here, in this place in Luke 16, it is written, and we therefore want to take it seriously right here.

We will deal with this speech of Jesus in a moment, wherein also further stories are told for a clearly named audience. I always find it amazing what understanding is gained when questioning the context. Whatever the meaning of the story of the rich man and Lazarus, it must fit into this context.

It also seems logical to me: the story must have something to do with the people to whom Jesus spoke. Also, the story must have been understandable to the audience. It must be about something they understood, something they knew, and to which Jesus now refers. We must first learn to understand the text in its own context.

A parable in five parts

The two different interpretations of this story (one literally true, the other an extra-biblical story) must be measured against the context. It is one speech of Jesus, and everything belongs together. Jesus begins the speech with the following words:

“But all the publicans and sinners used to draw near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes murmured and said: This one accepts sinners and eats with them! And he spake unto them this parable, saying, What man among you…”
Lk 15,1-3

What follows is not a single parable, but a whole series that speaks directly to the listeners. This speech is therefore also seen as a five-part parable:

1. The Parable of the Shepherd and the Lost Sheep (Lk 15:3-7)
2. The Parable of the Widow and the Lost Drachma (Lk 15:8-10)
3. The Parable of the Father and the Prodigal Son (Lk 15:11-32)
4. The parable of the rich man and his steward (Lk 16:1-9)
   (Intermediate Remarks)
5. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31)

Target group 1: Publicans and sinners

The first three parables deal primarily with tax collectors and sinners. There are three things that were lost, and all found again. They show how God is pleased when they find their way back to Him. They were lost and are found.

Target group 2: Pharisees and scribes

The last two parables speak mainly of the Pharisees and scribes. They are the rich man who is mentioned twice. The teachers of Israel are rich in many things and much has been left to them, but it seems they have not taken care of their task. They themselves understood Jesus’ words in this way (Lk 16:14).

It is these audiences that are represented in the parables. In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus is referring to something that was familiar to the Pharisees and scribes.

The essence of a parable

Even though the word “parable” is used only once in this longer discourse (Luke 15:3), it is clear that the subsequent stories are all parables as well. For example, the beginnings of the parables are all similar. The parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus reads like the typical beginning of a fairy tale: “Now there was a rich man…” (Lk 16:18).

A similar beginning of other parables reads in Lk 16:1 (“There was a rich man”), Lk 15:11 (“A man had two sons”), or in Lk 14:16 (“A man made a great feast”), and the first two parables speak of “What man among you” (Lk 15:4) and “What woman” (Lk 15:8).

There are many parables that are not specifically called “parables.” We are taught to recognize parables without it being specifically mentioned. A direct comparison with the other parables confirms the same structure. It is a pictorial story told with a special purpose. Elsewhere we read that Jesus spoke to the multitudes nothing without parables (Matt 13:34).

But, some object, surely even a parable must have a kernel of truth? Because otherwise no one understands the story. Without reference to reality, it cannot be a parable at all. That’s true, of course. However, we should not jump to the conclusion that this makes the story about the afterlife. That would be a short circuit. In parables there is indeed a reference to real things, and there is indeed a truth quoted to explain another truth, but the parable is adapted to the purpose of the narrative. So the question is, what exactly is the reference point supposed to be, and with what aim is the story just so cited.

When a parable is told, it is never about the story of the parable, but about the statement that is made with it. The actual subject is central, but not the figurative part of the parable, which is only to explain a certain aspect of the actual concern. So, if we establish that this is a parable, then it is immediately clear that the comparison is not the issue.

Take, for example, the parable of the shepherd and the lost sheep. In fact, there are shepherds and sheep. Also, it may happen that a sheep is lost. But not there has to be a real reference. Jesus did not tell about a particular shepherd who had exactly 100 sheep, one of which was lost. It’s not reporting.

The reference to the truth is there, but the use in the parable is adapted to the aim of the parable. The parable of the lost sheep is not about sheep breeding, not about the profession of the shepherd, nor does it mean that all flocks of sheep consist of exactly 100 sheep, one of which is always lost. Something similar can be said of the other parables. Also of the rich man and Lazarus.

A parable can even speak of invented things. For example, the parable of Jotham from Judges 9 talks about talking trees (Ri 9:7-15). The parable is expressive, but it is not correct information about the plant kingdom. Likewise, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is not a teaching about the afterlife, but the content serves a very different purpose that is directly evident from the context.

Note: A parable uses familiar things to explain something else.
(The image in the parable is not the subject, and is adapted to the goal of the story. Sometimes the reference is not real either).

Because the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable as well as the surrounding stories, it should be clear to us immediately that it is not about an explanation of the hereafter . It’s about other things. We will come to that later. Besides, some clear statements of this story are very strange. Because if we take this story literally, the rich man ends up in the flames just because he was rich , and Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, exclusively because he was poor :

“But Abraham said, Son, consider that thou hast received thy good in thy life, and Lazarus likewise the evil; now he is comforted, but thou art tormented.”
(Luke 16:25).

This does not correspond at all to the conclusions of a heaven and hell doctrine, which interprets only selectively. Nevertheless, also this parable must have a true core, after which is referred. The question is: What does Jesus point to?

Interrogate the text

If the story has value, we should recognize it in the text. So let’s first interrogate the text itself. What do we learn? What we mention and what not? And what questions are left at the end?

The answers provide information about all relevant points of the passage. Everything the story is supposed to say must be understood in this context.

The audience and the origin of the story

Jesus certainly made a statement that was understandable to the listeners. Even though we have not yet followed up on the actual statement, we already know much more. This is about a parable. We have also discovered from other examples: the story of a parable is never the real subject. Thus, this is not a description of the afterlife, nor can this story be cited as teaching about hell. What is the underlying theme in the conversation?

If we pay attention to the audience of this conversation and speech, we see how Jesus confronts ordinary and educated people alike. Parables have the ability to bring complex issues down to a good denominator that everyone can understand. The fourth and fifth parts of this series of parables speak of the Pharisees and scribes. With the immediately preceding fourth parable about the rich man and his steward, the Pharisees felt directly addressed. For they are the stewards who were to manage the house of Israel for God. That would be their job. In the fourth parable, Jesus takes aim at their greed for money and laxity. The Pharisees feel directly addressed:

“Now the Pharisees also, who were greedy for money, heard all this, and they mocked him. And he said to them: It is you 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.”
Lk 16,14-15

Jesus recognized that the Pharisees were trying to justify themselves. Already in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus noted, “Unless your righteousness far surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven at all!” (Mt 5:20). When Jesus speaks of prayer, he refers again to hypocritical piety of many (not: all!) Pharisees: “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites; for they like to stand in the synagogues and on the street corners and pray to be noticed by people. Verily I say unto you, they have already received their reward.” (Mt 6:5). Now this is also the background for the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

The rich man, that would be the self-righteous Pharisee in the story. Poor Lazarus, that would be the Jew for whom the Pharisee should have been there. Again and again in the Gospels, Jesus addresses the grievances of the religious elite. Let us also read this testimony of Jesus:

“Then Jesus spake unto the multitude, and unto his disciples, saying, The scribes and Pharisees have sat down in Moses’ seat. All things therefore whatsoever they say unto you, that ye ought to observe, observe, and do: but after their works do they not: for they say well, but do not. For they bind heavy and hardly bearable burdens, and lay them upon men’s shoulders; but they will not touch them with a finger. But all their works they do to be seen of the people. For they make their prayer straps wide and the hems on their garments large, and they love the uppermost place at meals and the first seats in the synagogues and the greetings in the markets, and when people call them “Rabbi, Rabbi.” But you shall not be called Rabbi, for one is your Master, the Christ; but you are all brethren. Neither call any man your father on earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called Master: for one is your Master, the Christ. But the greatest among you shall be your servant. But he that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, that ye shut up the kingdom of heaven from men! You yourselves do not enter, and those who want to enter you do not let in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, that you eat the houses of widows and pray for a long time in pretense. Therefore you will receive a heavier judgment!”
Mt 23,1ff

The leap to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is now no longer great. As soon as we look at the closer and wider context, the groups to which Jesus addresses himself become concrete. Also, the issues Jesus is talking about here shine out. The five parables in Luke 15 and Luke 16 are not a completely new situation, but a recurring theme. There are always the listeners mentioned in the parables. You are “in the picture” here.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a story from the tradition of the Pharisees. We read in Matthew how they themselves “sat in Moses’ chair.” You have given yourself the best place. Their self-righteousness has also been reflected in their traditions, where they imagined themselves “in Abraham’s bosom” while the other people (like Lazarus) remained outside. Jesus radically reverses this story. In another place He said: “The tax collectors and the harlots enter the kingdom of God sooner than you! For John came to you with the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the publicans and the harlots believed him” (Mt 21:31-32).

Flavius Josephus and the Book of Enoch

This rabbinic story, as quoted by Jesus in Luke 16, is found both in Flavius Josephus and in the Book of Enoch back. Josephus produced a tract for a Greek audience, specifically on Jewish thoughts about Hades. All the elements of Luke 16 are found back here: The unbridgeable gulf, hellfire, the chastisement, Abraham’s bosom, etc. From its coverage, it is clear that it is a rabbinic story, a popular belief, so to speak, a way of self-understanding of the religious leaders. In about the same way, perhaps, as people still talk about heaven and hell today.

Parts of the story can also be seen in the apocryphal Book of Enoch. Enoch asks the angel Raphael:

“So at that time I inquired about him and about the general judgment, saying: Why is one separated from the other? He answered: three things have been made between the spirits of the dead, and so the spirits of the righteous have been separated, namely a gulf, water and light above. And in the same way sinners are separated, when they die and are buried in the earth, judgment did not befall them during their lifetime. Here their souls are separated. Moreover, their suffering is great until the time of the great judgment, the chastisement and torment of those who curse eternally, whose souls are punished and bound until eternity. And so it has been from the beginning of the world. So there was a separation there between the souls of those who lament and those who lie in wait for their destruction, to murder them in the day of sinners. A container of this kind has been made for the souls of unrighteous people and sinners, those who have committed crimes and joined the wicked, whom they resemble. Their souls shall not be destroyed in the day of judgment, nor shall they rise from this place.”

Book of Enoch, chapter 22, paragraph 5.

However, we do not find all these things described anywhere in the Bible . Neither a cleft, nor the different divisions, nor the womb of Abraham are mentioned anywhere. They are imaginative narratives found in the tradition of the scribes – but not in the Old Testament nor in the letters that today make up the New Testament. Jesus refers to the thoughts of the scribes and Pharisees about themselves, but not to a real hereafter. This is also logical – nothing in the conversation suggests that Jesus is explaining the afterlife here. There were no questions about it, no reason.

In this place, which is called “Hades” in Luke 16, there is also no fire burning when we read about it in the Bible otherwise. In Hades (hb. Sheol) there is also no talking because there is silence (Ps 31,18, Is 38,18-19 u.a.). So Jesus does not quote a biblical but an extra-biblical story – and that it was silent in Hades/Sheol until Jesus tells this story does not seem very plausible. It lacks to a literal interpretation any context.

Abraham

Because the self-righteous leaders of the people saw themselves in Moses’ chair and in Abraham’s bosom in their own narratives, Jesus can make a real connection. Hermann Lichtenberger writes on the meaning of the name of Abraham:

“The question of the paternity of Abraham and of his legitimate descendants, however, is now disputed in several respects in early Judaism and in nascent Christianity. Whose father is Abraham? And who may call himself Abraham’s son or daughter, Abraham’s seed or his child? What does this status mean? How do you obtain it, and how can you recognize it?

In Jn 8,39 “the Jews” hold up to Jesus the confessional self-image: “Our father is Abraham”. Jesus, in his answer, admits them to be “Abraham’s seed,” but not “Abraham’s children,” since they do not do his “works.” He thus differentiates between genealogical descent and ethico-religious affiliation and legitimacy.

We find the same differentiation in the Gospel of Luke. The sentence “We have Abraham as father” is similarly emphatic in the sermon of the Baptist in Lk 3,8 par., but here polemically turned, in that the Baptist immediately denies this faked self-predication of the Jewish audience: “God can raise children from these stones to Abraham”. On the other hand, in Lk 13:16 Jesus gives a sick Jewish woman the honorary title “daughter of Abraham.” Correspondingly, in Lk 19:9, the tax collector Zacchaeus is given the honorary title “Son of Abraham.” Of particular interest is the idea of Abraham’s bosom in Lk 16:19-31, the narrative of the rich man and poor Lazarus. The rich man, a Jew, addresses Abraham as “father Abraham” from his point of view as correctly as trustingly. Abraham answers accordingly with the salutation “child”, but factually can do nothing for the rich man. All these phrases show that in Luke’s Gospel the self-evident predication of all Jews as Abraham’s children is set aside in favor of individual differentiation.”

Jesus quotes a rabbinical tradition

The popular and traditional story is the core of the truth to which Jesus refers in the parable. He adapts the well-known rabbinic story to the purpose of His statement, which is why the Pharisees (the rich man) end up in the flames in His version, while Lazarus (the lost sheep of the house of Israel) finds himself in Abraham’s bosom. The speech was unmistakable to the ears of the audience. However, it is not a biblical teaching about the afterlife. Questions about the afterlife, judgment, death and resurrection must be answered from other Bible texts.

From this example we see how cultural references appear quite logically and appropriately in the biblical stories. For the audience at the time, familiar with the references mentioned, this was clear language. But what has been made of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus over the course of time is hair-raising. Only the contexts mentioned here above explain the text in its own context – a principle for healthy Bible study.

A lesson about an eternal hell can therefore not be derived from this story. If one does this anyway, one gets into the devil’s kitchen, theologically speaking. Literally interpreted, this story is not about “living by faith” because faith is not a theme in the story. It is quite enough to “be rich” to be damned, or to “be poor” to end up in Abraham’s lap. The story has nothing at all to do with the gospel of grace from which we may draw today. Only the understanding from the direct context is really plausible. Jesus addressed grievances and their self-righteousness very directly in his listeners.