Jesus told this parable immediately after rebuking the Pharisees for their love of money, addressing men who had scoffed at what He had just taught about the right use of possessions. It is the only parable in the Gospels in which a character receives a name, and the naming is deliberate. The rich man remains anonymous throughout, while the beggar at his gate is called Lazarus, meaning God is my help, a name that outlasts the wealth beside which it was ignored.
The Earthly Scene
"There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores."1
Purple dye, drawn from the murex shellfish, and fine linen imported from Egypt were among the costliest goods available in the ancient world, and Luke pairs them to establish the rich man's condition before naming a single deed of his. His feasting is daily rather than occasional. Lazarus, by contrast, is laid at the gate by others, since nothing in the account suggests he could bring himself there, and his only expectation is what falls unwanted from another man's table. Even the dogs, regarded as unclean scavengers in that setting, come nearer to him than the man whose gate he lay against.
Nothing in the passage accuses the rich man of driving Lazarus away or doing him active harm. The charge, when it comes, is not for anything done to Lazarus. It is for what was never done at all. He passed a suffering man at his own gate every day of his sumptuous life and left him there.
Amos had condemned the same composure centuries before Luke wrote this account, describing men who "lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat the lambs out of the flock, and the calves out of the midst of the stall," and who drink and make music and anoint themselves, "but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph."2 The rich man's fault is of that same kind. His table was full every day, and the affliction lying at his own gate never once grieved him enough to require action.
The Reversal
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."3
The account of Lazarus's death mentions angels and no burial. The account of the rich man's death mentions burial and no angels. Luke's arrangement of the two clauses makes the reversal audible before the narrative states it outright. The man whom the world buried with whatever honors his wealth could purchase is the one who lifts up his eyes in torment, while the man the world left unburied at a stranger's gate is the one carried by angels to Abraham's side.
The rich man is conscious, in torment, and able to see and to speak from the moment the account places him in hell. He recognizes Abraham and Lazarus at a distance, and the exchange that follows assumes memory, awareness, and the capacity to reason and to plead. The parable gives no place to any interval of unconsciousness between death and this scene. Both men are presented as immediately and consciously present in the destiny appointed to them, and the conversation that follows proceeds on exactly that basis.
The Request for a Drop of Water
"And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence."4
The rich man still addresses Lazarus as an errand runner rather than as an equal, asking Abraham to send him with water as though the years at the gate had taught him nothing. Abraham's answer gives two grounds rather than one. The first is the reversal already stated: good things and evil things have changed hands, and comfort now belongs to the one who once lacked it. The second is the gulf itself, described as fixed and impassable in both directions. Neither the comforted nor the tormented can cross it, and its finality is stated as a settled fact rather than argued for. The verdict rendered at death is not provisional, and nothing in the exchange holds open the possibility of a later revision of it.
The Warning to the Five Brethren
"Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."5
Denied water for himself, the rich man turns to his five living brothers and asks for a sign rather than a rescue. His assumption is that they lack information he himself never lacked, and that a messenger from the dead would supply what the law and the prophets could not. Abraham refuses the request on the ground that the means already given are sufficient. The Scriptures his brothers already possess carry the same authority a returning witness would carry, and a heart unmoved by Moses and the prophets will not be moved by a resurrection either. A further edge sits in Abraham's final sentence that the rich man could not have heard in his own words. Christ would rise from the dead, and religious leaders who held Moses and the prophets in their own hands would still refuse to believe, exactly as Abraham states.
What the Text Establishes
The parable does not explain hell, name a mechanism for the gulf, or settle every question that might be asked about the state of the dead. It establishes plainly what it says: death did not interrupt either man's awareness of his own condition, the reversal of comfort and torment was immediate rather than delayed to a future resurrection, and the separation fixed at that point cannot afterward be crossed. The author of Hebrews states the ground of this finality in its briefest form: "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."6 No return is offered to the rich man, and none is promised to his brothers, only the standing testimony of Scripture, which either persuades now or will not be helped by anything more dramatic later.
The rich man's condemnation cannot be separated from Lazarus lying at his gate. John states the principle the rich man broke daily without ever naming it to himself: "But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?"7 The rich man never struck Lazarus, robbed him, or ordered him away. He passed him every day and judged that nothing was required of him. The parable answers that a great deal was required, and that indifference toward a man dying at one's own gate is itself the offense for which an account is rendered.
You May Also Enjoy
The Parable of the Rich Fool: The Dangers of Greed and Storing Up Earthly Treasures
The Parable of the Unjust Steward: Wise Stewardship and Eternal Investments
The Parable of the Ten Minas: Faithful Service and the Reward of Stewardship
The Voice That Will Raise the Dead
The Parable of the Talents: Faithful Stewardship of God-Given Gifts
The Parable of the Faithful Servant and the Evil Servant: Vigilance and Stewardship