Jesus, having just concluded The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (verses 1-13) with the statement that “You cannot serve God and wealth,” proceeded to exemplify godly stewardship with yet another parable:
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s KOLPON [bosom]. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in BASANOS [touchstone, testing], he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his KOLPON [bosom]. So he called to him, “Father Abraham, have pity 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 fire.” But Abraham replied, “Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.” He answered, “Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of BASANOS [touchstone, testing].“ Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.” “No, father Abraham,” he said, “but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.” He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
Luke 16:19-31
In the Bible, the term “Abraham’s Bosom” (sometimes translated as “Abraham’s side”) is a unique expression found only once. In Jewish tradition, however, “Abraham’s Bosom” is a well-known metaphor (e.g., Apocalypse of Zephaniah 11:1-2; Kiddushin 72b; Genesis Rabba 67), not regarded as a literal place or as a historical account of events but a metaphor for being in a state of peace and blessing.
Nothing in the parable speaks about the quality of faith of the characters involved. In fact, this parable isn’t about faith at all. The Rich Man, representing the Pharisees, is religious, as he calls Abraham “father,” who in return calls him “son.” On the other hand, Lazarus clearly represents the poor and marginalized, those who suffer in this life but are ultimately vindicated, as Jesus’ earlier Beatitudes promise. The Rich Man symbolizes those—often religious—who live in luxury and neglect the needs of others, losing rewards in the afterlife.
What If It’s Not a Parable?
The Augustine-Calvinist interpretation is compelled to view this narrative as a factual historical record due to the literal understanding of the imagery of heat and fire (“hellfire”). However, this interpretation involves a selective literal approach to the narrative, treating certain elements as figurative while others as literal descriptions. For example, John MacArthur asserts that the poor man is in Heaven, suggesting he views the term ‘Abraham’s Bosom’ as a metaphor:
“…Abraham’s bosom. That’s kind of an Old Testament reference to a place of comfort, a place of peace where Abraham is and Abraham, of course, was a true believer…So this would be heaven.”
John MacArthur
False. The phrase Abraham’s Bosom does not appear in the Old Testament. Yet, notice how John MacArthur says, “That’s kind of an Old Testament reference.” That was an interesting choice of words, “Kind of.” How about not at all an Old Testament reference? Additionally, John MacArthur added a theological layer by saying, “Abraham, of course, was a true believer…So this would be heaven.”
By interpreting it that way, MacArthur shifted the parable’s focus from a critique of the love of money (verse 14) to the question of who is a true believer. In his view, Lazarus was a “true believer,” while the Rich Man was not. However, the parable’s original intent is not to define true belief, as it doesn’t even address faith. This is evident also through Jesus’ choice of the “Rich Man” over the “True Believer.” In fact, Christ had just shared The Parable of the Shrewd Manager (verses 1-12) about the unjust steward who had mishandled his master’s money. This second parable was told to illustrate further what proper stewardship is. Jesus did not abruptly switch from one genre to another; he did not go from telling a parable to narrating a historical event.
“Bosom” means a person’s chest area. If we interpret this parable literally instead, then did Lazarus literally sit on Abraham’s chest? There wouldn’t be room to breathe, let alone stretch one’s arms. Clearly, Christ is using symbolism. John MacArthur’s interpretation that equates Abraham’s bosom with heaven highlights a tendency among some preachers to selectively interpret this parable metaphorically where it fits their theological narratives about hellfire. However, Abraham’s Bosom, a term unique to this parable and Jewish tradition and not found elsewhere in scripture, complicates literal interpretations, suggesting a symbolic reading was intended.
Interpreted literally, the parable appears to say that heaven and hell are separated by merely a short walk, with inhabitants of both sides able to communicate—a notion at odds with other beliefs positing hell as a distant, inaccessible realm below and heaven as an elevated sanctuary above. Instead, the parable should be considered as metaphorically highlighting the consequences of ignoring divine commandments—represented metaphorically by the impassable chasm between the Rich Man and Lazarus. This chasm underscores the finality of one’s earthly actions and their implications for the afterlife, yet it remains a vehicle for moral teaching rather than a doctrinal statement on the geography of the afterlife. The “great chasm (or gulf)“ referred to the Jordan Rift Valley, symbolizing the division between Gentile lands and the Holy Land of promise, which Jews recognized as a symbol of salvation (divine blessing and protection).
A few chapters earlier, Jesus, possibly concerned that his words might be interpreted literally, clarified, “I speak in parables” (Luke 8:10). Nevertheless, some persist in interpreting these parables as literal historical events to align with their theological views.
Lazarus-Eleazar
Jesus’s use of a real name in parables is not typical. For this reason, advocates of ECT in Hellfire often suggest that when real names are used, they ground the story in reality and, therefore, are not parables but actual historical events. This, however, represents a misconception of the function and significance of names in Judaism.
In contrast with non-Hebrew names, Hebrew names always carry a meaning. Hebrew names are often descriptive and reflect characteristics, divine attributes, or significant events associated with the individual. For instance, “Isaac” means “he will laugh,” referencing Sarah’s laughter upon learning she would bear a child in her old age. Similarly, “Samuel” means “heard by God,” reflecting Hannah’s prayer for a son. This tradition underscores the significance and intentionality behind Hebrew naming in Israel’s culture, which is less common in most other naming traditions.
Lazarus, the Greek form of the Hebrew name “Eleazar,” was already assigned in the Old Testament. In Hebrew, “Eleazar” means “God’s Help.” For a Jewish audience, this name—as with all other Hebrew names—bears allegorical significance and theological implications, suggesting Divine aid and fortitude, aligning with the parable’s theme.
The expression “desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table” commonly identified Gentiles, as seen in Matthew 15:22–28. Similarly, the term “laid at his gate” echoes the typical Jewish reference to a Gentile convert known as a “Proselyte of the Gate,” who embraced Jewish ethics, rejected pagan beliefs, and adhered to certain Jewish rituals yet did not undergo circumcision or baptism. However, they were often viewed as “second class” in religious terms.
The use of Lazarus-Eleazar and Abraham in the parable reminds the Jewish audience of Eleazar of Damascus, Abraham’s chief steward mentioned in Genesis 15:2-3. Eleazar, also a Gentile steward, was initially the heir to Abraham’s estate until Isaac was born. Despite this, Eleazar faithfully executed Abraham’s wishes, even at the cost of his own inheritance. This disinheritance is symbolically captured in the parable, where Lazarus-Eleazar, representing Eleazar, is depicted as a “beggar” who has nothing of earthly value. The connection between Abraham and Eleazar adds depth to Jesus’s parable, highlighting previous themes of stewardship.
The employment of a specific name to evoke Jewish tradition, something Jewish rabbis often do, suggests that Lazarus-Eleazar is the focus of the parable rather than the fictional setting. This technique highlights the importance of the character and the underlying message, drawing from familiar traditions and teachings to convey a deeper meaning and ongoing themes. In this parable, likely the concept that “Some who are last will be first, and some who are first will be last.” (Luke 13:30), according to their life decisions.
The Rich Man
On the other hand, the Rich Man, unnamed, donned purple linen, a fabric traditionally associated with royalty, nobility, and affluence due to the costly nature of the purple dye in those days. This signified wealth and elevated status. The “Rich Man” remains unnamed because the parable is meant to elevate Lazarus-Eleazar.
The Rich Man was portrayed as an actual son of Abraham, with Christ having him call Abraham “father” (Luke 16:24) and Abraham acknowledging him as “son” (verse 25). In Judaism, this sonship implied that the Rich Man was a legal possessor of Abraham’s inheritance, not necessarily a literal son, enjoying all the physical blessings promised to Abraham’s seed. He wore purple, symbolizing kingship, and linen, representing priesthood—indicating the rich religious and royal heritage of Israel, specifically Judah, which assumed possession of both the kingdom and priesthood, embodying the promises given to Abraham. Essentially, beneath the surface, this served as Jesus’s critique of Israel’s religious and affluent leadership (e.g., verse 14).
Though the Rich Man was given Abraham’s blessings, he was shown to be unfaithful. In contrast, Lazarus (Eleazar, the faithful steward) was now in Abraham’s bosom, received into the “everlasting habitations” (verse 9). In a sense, this parable can be seen as Jesus’ sarcastic answer to the Pharisees’ declaration, “We are Abraham’s descendants” (John 8:33) and “Abraham is our father” (John 8:39). This theme emerges early in Luke’s gospel, where John the Baptist proclaims, “do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’” (Luke 3:8)
Fire, a symbol of the Rich Man’s punishment, does not signify the duration of his punishment. Rather, “fire” carries profound symbolism of purification in Judaism and the Hebrew Scriptures, which will be the subject of a subsequent chapter.
BASANOS
The Greek word “BASANOS” is often translated as “place of torment” (NIV), “horrible place” (CEV), and “place of pain” (GNT), depending on the English translation. However, ‘HELPS Word-Studies’ defines ‘BASANOS’ as follows:
Basanos: a touchstone (a dark stone used in testing metals), hence examination by torture. Cognate: 931 básanos – originally, a black, silicon-based stone used as “a touchstone” to test the purity of precious metals (like silver and gold). See 928 (basanízō). In the papyri, basanos also means, “touchstone,” “test” (so P Oxy I. 58.25, ad 288). 931 (basanois) was “originally (from oriental origin) a touchstone; a ‘Lydian stone’ used for testing gold because pure gold rubbed on it left a peculiar mark. Then it was used for examination by torture. Sickness was often regarded as ‘torture’ ” (WP, 1, 37).
HELPS Word-studies; 931 BASANOS
In essence, ‘basanos‘ signifies not gratuitous vengeful torture but rather a form that purifies precious metals, thereby cleansing them—a punishment of temporary and corrective nature rather than sadistic neverending torment.
Conclusion
The Lazarus of the parable is identified as Eleazar, Abraham’s steward (Genesis 15:2), a Gentile from Damascus who “ate the crumbs.” Despite being disinherited and becoming a beggar, Eleazar remained a faithful steward to Abraham and God. Upon his death, he received Abraham’s inheritance in “everlasting habitations.” The Rich Man in the parable is possibly Judah, representing Israel’s religious aristocracy, who had five literal brothers and was a son of Abraham, unlike Eleazar. Judah also possessed kingship (symbolized by purple) and priesthood (symbolized by linen). However, Judah was not the true steward of Abrahamic blessings. Despite having the “oracles of God” (the Old Testament), Israel did not respond to their own Messiah.
The parable, set against the socio-religious backdrop of the Pharisees’ love for money (Luke 16:13), serves as a critique of materialism and a call to ethical living according to Moses and the prophets, who often stressed God’s mandate of taking care of the poor and needy (Exodus 22:22-23, Leviticus 19:9-10, Deuteronomy 14:28-29, 15:7, Isaiah 58:7, Proverbs 19:17, 22:9, Psalm 82:3-4, Zechariah 7:9-10, Jeremiah 22:16). The irony of the names in the parable is striking – religious wealth is personified by the “Rich Man,” while the poor, needy and outcasts are given a more personal touch with a surname, epitomized by the remarkable Hebrew name “God Helps”!
The narrative does not attempt to develop a “hellfire” doctrine but to challenge the false yet prevailing notion of wealth as a sign of divine favor on religious people, subverting it to critique those who neglect justice and mercy. Jesus’ engagement with Pharisaic hypocrisy does not endorse their views but utilizes traditionally familiar concepts in Judaism to challenge their practices and beliefs.
Thus, interpreting this parable should consider its role within Luke’s broader narrative, its Jewish context, and Jesus’ ministry, focusing on its ethical teachings and its use as a tool for spiritual reflection rather than a literal description of people being forever tortured in fire in the afterlife. This approach aligns with the broader scriptural context where parables function as illustrative tools rather than doctrinal textbook treatises.
This article was a copy-paste from my new book on hell: HELL: A Jewish Perspective on a Christian Doctrine
