QUOTES: The Rich Man, Lazarus, and Abraham by Steven Cox
First of all read Luke 16:19-31
So Cox writes,
Who are the characters?
The Rich Man = ?
His father = ?
His five brothers = ?
Lazarus= ?
Abraham = ?
It seems easiest to start where there is likely to be most agreement, that
Abraham is the Abraham of Genesis.
Next easiest is Lazarus. There is only one person of this name found in the
Bible, namely Lazarus of Bethany, the brother of Mary and Martha who was raised
from the dead by Jesus in John 11:1-44. Comparing the parallel accounts of the
anointing in Bethany in John 12:3 and Matthew 26:6 we find that Lazarus’ other
name was Simon, and that he had been a leper. The leprosy must have been healed
when Christ raised Lazarus from the dead, but he was still known as "Simon the
Leper".
This explains why the Lazarus in the parable was "full of sores" (Luke 16:20).
The begging had nothing to do with poverty, it was because he was unclean.
According to the Law of Moses, Simon would have been ceremonially unclean and
could not enter his own house in Bethany; "he must live outside the camp"
(Leviticus 13:46).
So we have two men, both Jews, both called Lazarus, both beggars, both lepers,
both of whom died, and both of whom would not convince people by their
resurrection (compare Luke 16:30-31 and John 12:10).
This is too many coincidences for them not to have been the same person. So:
Abraham= Abraham
Lazarus = Lazarus
This would lead us to expect the Rich Man is also someone known to the audience
of the parable.
Who was the Rich Man?
Reading through the story we can find the following clues to the identity of the
Rich Man:
he was rich (vs.19)
dressed in purple and fine linen (vs.19)
lived in luxury every day (vs.19)
in his lifetime he received good things (vs.25)
he had five brothers (vs.28)
they lived in his father’s house (vs.27)
they had Moses and the Prophets (vs.25)
but they did not listen to them (vs.29)
they would not be convinced even if someone were to rise from the dead (vs.31)
It is not obvious to the modern reader who this Rich Man is. But it should be
clear that the picture is much too detailed to simply be ‘a representative of
all rich men’.
But the Pharisees listening would have known immediately whom Christ was
referring to. There was not any chance of their mistaking it, because only one
man in Israel dressed in purple and fine linen. A man who fitted exactly all the
clues which Jesus gave as to the identity of the Rich Man.
As in Luke’s previous parable of the Dishonest Steward, the key to the meaning
lies in the Old Testament. In Exodus 28 we find the instructions given to Aaron
for making the high priest’s garments; "blue, purple, and scarlet yarn and fine
linen" (note Exodus 28:5-8,15,31,39). The Pharisees could not fail to understand
that the man dressed in purple and fine linen was the Jewish high priest.
The Name of the Rich Man
The high priest when Jesus spoke this parable was Caiaphas. We know from the
Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote a detailed account of the period in
Antiquities of the Jews, that Caiaphas met all 4 of the first qualifications of
the Rich Man of Luke 16:
1. he was rich (v.19)
2. dressed in purple and fine linen (v.19)
3. lived in luxury every day (v.19)
4. in his lifetime he received good things (v.25)
(see Antiquities, XIII: 10:vi:p.281, XVIII:1:iv:p.377, also Wars of the Jews
11:8:xiv: p. 478)
His Father’s House
In Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6 we meet the other high priest who served with Caiaphas,
Annas, who was "father-in-law to Caiaphas" (John 18:13). Josephus also records
that Caiaphas served as high priest 18-35AD at the time of Jesus’ ministry.
Annas had been removed from his office by the Romans for openly resisting them,
but behind the scenes he retained his authority and position. This is why in
John 18:13-24 Jesus is first tried by Annas, and only afterwards sent to
Caiaphas (v.28), but then Caiaphas, not Annas, sends Jesus to Pilate (v.29).
Five Brothers
In case anyone listening did not understand who He meant, Christ was even more
specific: The "five brothers" Christ mentions are the five other high priests,
who were in fact his five brothers-in-law, the five sons of Annas. The historian
Josephus records:
"Now the report goes, that this elder Annas proved a most fortunate man; for he
had five sons, who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and he
had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened
to any other of our high priests. . ." (Antiquities, Book XX, chapter 9, section
i, p.423)
The years they served are as follows:
Eleazar 16-17AD
Jonathan 36-37AD
Theophilus 37-41AD
Matthias 41-43AD
Annas the Younger 62AD
As mentioned above, the years 18-35AD between Eleazar and Jonathan were occupied
by Caiaphas. Between 43-62AD the high priests were taken from other families
than of Annas. Finally in 70AD the temple was destroyed and the high priesthood
along with it.
This confirms the list of coincidences between the Rich Man and Caiaphas:
5. he had five brothers (v.28)
6. they lived in his father’s house (v.27)
7. they had Moses and the Prophets (v.25)
8. but they did not listen to them (v.29)
The final coincidence is confirmed when after the resurrection of Simon of
Bethany, we read that "the chief priests made plans to kill Lazarus as well, for
on account of him many of the Jews were going over to Jesus and putting their
faith in him" (John 12:10)
9. they would not be convinced even if someone were to rise from the dead (v.31)
John 12:10 also confirms another coincidence between the Lazarus of the parable
and Simon Lazarus of Bethany. The resurrection of both was rejected by Annas and
his five sons.
Summary so far
We have established the identity of all the characters:
Abraham = Abraham
Lazarus = Simon the Leper of Bethany
The Rich Man = Caiaphas
His father = Annas
His 5 brothers = Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Annas the Younger
The Bosom of Abraham
"The time came when the beggar died, and the angels carried him to Abraham’s
side" (v.22 NIV).
Now this is where the story starts to become difficult. Nowhere else in the
Bible does it say that when men die they go to Abraham’s side. In older Bibles
it reads "bosom of Abraham", meaning the lap of Abraham.
Today there are a hundred and one different theories about death. Many people
seriously believe when they die they will go up to the gates of Heaven, to be
met by the Apostle Peter. Others believe other things. But the idea that the
dead go to sit 'in the lap' of Abraham is something that nobody today believes.
But people did believe it in Jesus' day. Mentions of "the bosom of Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob" have been found in burial papyri (cf. papyrus Preisigke Sb
2034:11). In early Rabbinical legends "the Bosom of Abraham" was where the
righteous went. (cf. Kiddushin 72b, Ekah 1:85). It is not in the Bible of
course, but it was popularly believed.
While the NIV has "to Abraham's side", the literal AV rendering "to the bosom of
Abraham" is better as the 'Bosom of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob', was a specific
concept in contemporary popular belief.
Another source showing what Jews of Jesus' day believed is a book called 4
Maccabees, which was probably written by Jews in Egypt about a generation after
Christ. In this work of fiction Abraham, Isaac and Jacob receive and welcome
Jewish martyrs into the world of the dead:
"After our death in this fashion Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us and
all our forefathers will praise us" (4 Maccabees 13:17).
Again, this is not Bible teaching, only popular superstition.
COMMENT: Jesus could add layers of meaning but it is too much of a stretch to imagine this is about Caiaphas. There were loads of rich men. Any one of them could be the one in purple every day! So it is not certain then who the five brothers are. They could be anybody. If Jesus meant what Cox thinks he did, then Jesus was clearly using the story as a weapon against Jewish leaders. Jesus used rich man when rich priest would have been better! It was not used for it is not what the story is about.
