Now there was a rich man and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, making good cheer in splendour every day.
The Lord opens with a portrait, not an argument. Here is a man whose clothing, table and daily routine were the picture of a life going well. The question the Lord presses on His listeners is whether any of that tells you where a person stands with God.
The men listening had just sneered at Christ's teaching about money. They had a reason for reading wealth the way they did.
But that cuts deep. The Pharisees are among His audience, and these zealous defenders of the law are money-lovers at the same time. So they mock Him — had not the law promised every good thing in this life to the man who kept it? From there it was an easy step. Some had never felt how hopeless man's condition is on that basis. Such a man could treat the fruit of his own greed as the sign that God accepted him.
Commentators differ on how to read this account. Some hold that the Lord is telling us what happened:
Avoid using the word "parable" for these verses. The Lord said, "There was a rich man." It is history, not a parable.
Others call it a parable. One of them writes, "I admit freely that it is a parable" — and still holds that the picture was meant to show us something true about life after death.
The purple and the linen are not decoration. Each carries a meaning, and together they press home what the Lord had just said about the things people prize.
What people value highly is often detestable in God's sight. The account of Lazarus and the rich man drives that home. The rich man was clothed in purple, that is, he lived like a king. He also wore fine linen, which stands for putting on at least an outward show of moral righteousness, as the Pharisees did. He ate the finest food every day. Such luxury in Israel was thought to be a sign of God's approval — but how far this is from the truth!
Nothing here suggests a scandalous life. The portrait is of respectability, and that is what makes it cut.
The Saviour pictures a man at ease and living in luxury in a world of misery. He has no faith in a world of sin. He is decent in his morals and religious on the outside. But he lives for himself, and in practice he is an unbeliever. Who did not know that man in Israel? Who is not familiar with him in Christendom?
Many readers assume the Lord condemns the man for cruelty to the beggar at his gate. The record is more careful than that, about both men.
No evil is recorded of the rich man beyond this, that he enjoyed himself to the full. Even neglect of Lazarus is not urged against him. Perhaps Lazarus did get the leftover pieces. That he remained a beggar is true — but is a rich man expected to feed and care for every beggar at his doorstep? We do not read of anything to the credit of this Lazarus either. Providence seems to have decided against him, and the law to have condemned him — for where are the good things the law promised to those who keep it?
The beggar has a name in this story. The rich man does not.
Lazarus is probably named to mark the interest the Lord took in him. Poor and utterly despised, he was known by name before God. The rich man, well known and waited on, was known only by his character. He was rich — and what was that before God? He lived in luxury, and that showed a heart alienated from Him.
- Sneer — The story answers men who loved money and read their prosperity as proof that God approved of them.
- Signal — Purple stood for royalty and fine linen for an outward show of goodness. Both were surface, and people read that surface as God's approval.
- Self — He is not painted as wicked. He is decent, religious and comfortable, and his whole life bends toward pleasing himself.
- Silence — No crime is listed against him. Enjoying himself to the full is the whole record, and that is what makes the story so searching.
- Seen — God knew the beggar by name, while the famous man goes unnamed. Being rich counted for nothing before God.
And [there was] a poor man, by name Lazarus, [who] was laid at his gateway full of sores,
Jesus sets two men side by side: one rich and unnamed, the other poor, covered with sores, and named. The verse raises the question the whole story answers — does the outward state of a life tell you anything true about how God sees it?
One commentator points out that the Lord never calls this account a parable, even though it is shaped like one. He also notes a detail that reads like reporting: someone else must have carried the beggar to the gate.
It comes to us without being called a parable, though it is told in the form in which so many parables were spoken. There may really have been two such men on earth as the ones described here. Their history in the other world matches what is set out in language suited to that day... We are not told who put him at the rich man's gate. Someone must have done it, for he was laid there, wanting what fell from the table. Did he get it? That question is left unanswered.
Commentators differ on whether Lazarus ever received the crumbs. One holds that his desire was ignored. Another says he may well have got the leftover pieces, since the account never charges the rich man with neglect.
A gate stands between the two men. One writer notes what the sight of Lazarus should have stirred, and who treated him better than the man of wealth did.
The poor man, Lazarus, was laid at the rich man's gate, full of sores. His condition ought to have awakened sympathy and concern... The dogs had more sympathy for him than did the man of wealth.
Only one of the two men is named, and it is the beggar. One writer explains what that name means and why it was kept.
The beggar's name was Lazarus; the rich man's name is not recorded. Lazarus means "God is my helper." It is far better to know God than to have all the world's wealth poured into your lap... The beggar's name has been kept for us with care, because every child of faith is precious in the sight of the Lord, however low his position here. The name of the fool who wasted his life is better wiped out, however high his standing.
Nothing good is recorded about Lazarus either — no works, no virtue, only sores and hunger. One writer finds the key to his story in the meaning of his name, not in anything the man did.
We do not read of anything to the credit of this Lazarus. Providence appears to have decided against him, and the law to have condemned him. For where are the good things the law promised to those who keep it?... His name, Lazarus, Eleazar, "the Mighty One the Helper," gives us the only key to the explanation here. Despite everything else against him, God the Mighty One has lifted him out of the degradation he was in, into the place where we now find him. He acted apart from law, and so in grace.
The rich man is never accused of cruelty, fraud, or crime. What he did was nothing at all — and one commentator links this to the same principle Jesus applies elsewhere in judgment.
Nothing is said of the positive guilt of the rich man in Luke 16, though he lived in ease and luxury. But he ignored the poor man Lazarus, who was laid at his gate only desiring crumbs from his table.
A common misreading is to treat the sores as merit and the wealth as guilt. One writer blocks both conclusions at once, while still allowing that hardship did real work in Lazarus.
It was not the affliction and sores of Lazarus that made him righteous, any more than the riches of the rich man made him unrighteous. God has finished with earthly things. So no earthly circumstance is a mark of God's present favour, or of the opposite. No doubt, though, God's dealings with Lazarus were the means of bringing down his pride and breaking his will, and so preparing him for the place He was going to take him to.
- Laid — Lazarus did not walk to the gate; someone carried him there. He is the picture of a man with nothing to bring.
- Named — the beggar is named and the rich man is not. Heaven keeps a different record than earth, and a wasted life is better left off it.
- Helped — "Lazarus" means God helps. That name, not his suffering, is the key to where he ends up: God acting in grace, apart from law.
- Ignored — no crime is charged against the rich man. The need lay at his gate and he did nothing. That was the sin.
- Reversed — sores did not make Lazarus righteous, and wealth did not condemn the other man. Outward circumstances are no measure of God's favour.
and desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the table of the rich man; but the dogs also coming licked his sores.
Luke 16:21 keeps its focus on the beggar, not the banquet. A man lies at a gate, hungry for scraps, with only street dogs for company. If wealth showed God's favour, what does this scene mean?
Lazarus does not arrive at the rich man's gate under his own power. The verse says he was laid at the gate, so someone carried him there. One writer notes what the account never tells us.
A pitiable case. Who put him at the rich man's gate is not told us. Someone must have done it, for he was laid at the rich man's gate, desiring what fell from his table. Did he get it? That question is left unsolved.
What were these crumbs? One writer passes on a note about how people ate at such a table:
Napkins were not used for the hands. The guests wiped their hands on bits of bread and then threw the pieces under the table.
Commentators differ over whether Lazarus ever received them. One reads the silence as refusal:
His condition ought to have awakened sympathy and concern. But even his wish for only the crumbs from the rich man's table was plainly ignored. The dogs had more sympathy for him than did the man of wealth. (Is there not a hint here that Gentile "dogs" had more heart than did the self-righteous Pharisees?)
Another writer is slower to blame him. He points out how little the story charges the rich man with:
No evil is recorded of the rich man beyond this, that he enjoyed himself to the full. Even neglect of Lazarus is not urged against him. Perhaps Lazarus may have got the broken pieces. That he remained a beggar is true: but is it supposed that a rich man is to feed and care for every beggar at his door-step?
Whatever became of the crumbs, the verse records only a wish. The kindness that follows comes from animals, not from the household.
The rich man had all that the heart, or rather the flesh, could desire, and he gratified it. But it was all selfish enjoyment: God was not in it, nor was there even care for man. All centred in self. Lazarus proved it — a poor man who lay at his gateway full of sores, longing to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. For him it was little more than desire. The rich man cared nothing for him, only for himself. The dogs were more thoughtful, and showed him more kindness than their master did. They came and licked his sores.
Later in the chapter the picture flips. One writer catches the reversal in a single detail:
The dogs' tongues had licked the beggar's sores on earth. Their master longed for his own tongue to lick the drop of water the beggar could carry on the tip of his finger. He was refused. The great gulf was fixed.
The scene at the gate looks like God's verdict on two men. It is not.
Note that the affliction, sores, and so on of Lazarus did not make him righteous, any more than the riches of the rich man made him unrighteous. God has finished with earthly things. So no earthly circumstances are a mark of God's present favour, or the reverse.
If the beggar's misery did not earn his place, something else must explain it. The answer is in his name.
According to the law a beggar had everything against him. Yet he gets a place that the best Jew in the world might envy him for. What has caused this? Not law, we may be sure. Nor was there any need to make up for that pitiable life on earth by the state that follows. His name, Lazarus, Eleazar, "the Mighty One the Helper," gives us the only key here. Everything else was against him. But God the Mighty One, acting apart from law and so in grace, has lifted him out of that degradation to the place where we now find him.
- Laid — Someone carried Lazarus to that gate. The account never says who. It never says whether he got the scraps either.
- Longing — What he wanted was the bread guests wiped their hands on and dropped under the table. His portion in the verse is desire, not food.
- Licked — Only the dogs were kind to him, doing what the household never did. Later the man who ignored him begged in vain for a wet fingertip.
- Levelled — Sores prove nothing, and riches prove nothing. Earthly circumstances are no measure of God's favour either way.
- Lifted — His name points to the Mighty One as Helper. That alone explains his end: not law, not suffering repaid, but grace reaching a man everything else had written off.
And it came to pass that the poor man died, and that he was carried away by the angels into the bosom of Abraham. And the rich man also died and was buried.
Two men die in the same story, and the moment they die everything about them is reversed. Jesus tells us what happened to the beggar's soul. Then He tells us what happened to the rich man's body. That difference carries the weight of the whole story.
One writer asks why the verse mentions the rich man's burial and says nothing of the beggar's:
Is there a life beyond the grave? Often and anxiously people argue the question. The Son of God answers it for us here. The beggar died. He did not cease to exist, and he did not sleep for centuries. At once the angels carried him into Abraham's bosom... The rich man also died, and of him it is said, "he was buried." Why is this added in his case? Clearly because the Lord would carefully distinguish between body and soul. The man's body was buried, no doubt with all the pomp that suited so wealthy a person. Right after that we read that "in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes."
One man gets a burial and no name. The other gets a name and no burial.
What a reversal at death! "The rich man died and was buried." The poor man, Lazarus, died also. The rich man's name is not told us: it was not worth remembering. Whether Lazarus had a burial or not does not matter. As to his spirit and soul, the angels carried him into Abraham's bosom. This tells us that his faith had been in the living God, for he is "blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith" (Galatians 3:9)... The rich man may have had a beautiful, imposing funeral. It made no difference to his torment after death.
The beggar does not travel alone. One writer links his escort to a promise in Hebrews:
Angels are ministering spirits. If one of our loved ones is called home, the angels serve as pallbearers. They carry that soul and spirit right into the presence of God (Luke 16:22). They are "ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation" (Hebrews 1:14).
Another writer notes who waited on the beggar at the end:
There is not a word of his burial. Perhaps he was not buried at all. But he "was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom." For a Jew that was the place of special blessedness in the unseen world, and the most honourable of God's servants waited on him.
The ESV reads "Abraham's side," where older translations say "Abraham's bosom." The phrase needed no footnote for the people listening.
The Jews believed that their forefather Abraham was in the highest place of happiness. Their writings show that "to be with Abraham" and to be in his bosom were terms they used for the highest security and happiness. So our Lord used a phrase His hearers knew well. It needed no explanation. It stands in contrast to hell, or Hades, and was therefore a figure of heaven.
The picture behind the phrase is a meal, with guests at the table:
For the Jew, Abraham had the highest and most blessed place in the other world. To be in his bosom was to be in the next best place to him — like the beloved disciple in Jesus' bosom at the table.
This is a real state after death, but it is not the end for either man. One writer shows how a believer's hope is described now:
Since the day of Luke 16 Christ has died and risen again, and has gone up as Man into God's glory. So the blessedness of believers who have died is now described in wholly different terms. It is "to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better," and to be "away from the body and at home with the Lord" (Philippians 1:23; 2 Corinthians 5:8). Neither the rich man nor Lazarus had yet reached eternal circumstances. The rich man was in Hades, not yet in the lake of fire, and neither he nor Lazarus had yet risen from the dead.
- Carried, not ended. Angels carried the beggar away at once — not wiped out, not asleep for centuries. Death moved him; it did not erase him.
- Carried, not buried. The rich man got a splendid funeral; the story follows Lazarus only as far as his soul. The Lord separates body from soul in the telling.
- Carried by angels. God's most honoured servants escorted the beggar — the ministering spirits who serve those who are to inherit salvation.
- Carried to the best seat. "Abraham's bosom" was the highest place a Jewish listener could picture. It is the seat next to Abraham at the table, in full security and happiness.
- Carried, but not yet home. This is a real state after death, not the final one. Since Christ died and rose, Scripture describes the believer's hope in different words: to depart and be with Him.