Luke 16:19-31

The story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 has sometimes been used by those who decree that the term “wealthy Christian” is an oxymoron to justify their belief. But even if you categorically believe this to be the uniform teaching of the New Testament, and from a truly contextual approach I personally do not think that idea is tenable, this is definitely not the best passage to use to buttress it.

The reason is easy to understand if you know a bit about the life of Abraham as it is told in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 24:35 we read the following:

“The Lord has greatly blessed my master, so that he has become rich; and he has given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and servants, and maids and camels and donkeys.”

These words were spoken by Abraham’s servant messenger during his journey to find an appropriate wife for his master’s son, Isaac (ultimately Rebekah). There are other references to the patriarch’s great wealth elsewhere in Genesis as well. Yet, at no point in the Bible is his status as one of the greatest “heroes of the Faith” somehow diminished by the mere fact of the material wealth he knew during his lifetime. Moreover, Jesus Himself obviously affirms this in Luke 16:19-31 when He places Abraham in Heaven speaking with the unfortunate rich man who finds himself in Hell.

The reason the rich man is there has less to do with his wealth than about how he did or, in this case, didn’t use it. We find out earlier in verses 19-21 that:

¹⁹ “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. ²⁰ At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores ²¹ and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.”

In the next verse we find out that the rich man dies and ends up in “Hades.” Meanwhile the beggar Lazarus, when he dies, finds himself in “Abraham’s bosom”, an Old Testament term clearly used here by Jesus to refer to Heaven.

Why is the rich man in Hell? It is clear enough from the text that he never once lifted a finger to help a poor, sick man who daily laid by the gate to his opulent mansion. One of my study bibles declares that there was a “fatal deficiency in the life” of this man, and I think it is safe to say that this deficiency was his total lack of compassion for Lazarus, not the fact of his wealth. It seems to me that any number of far less affluent Israelites at the time could have shown the same lack of compassion as the rich man…and suffered exactly the same fate.

The dialogue between Abraham and the rich man is that of one once materially rich person to another. For this reason wealth, in and of itself, cannot be the determining factor for the very different places in which the two ended up. The determining factor was character.

Having wealth here on earth carries with it great responsibilities, of that there is no doubt. We see this borne out elsewhere in the counsel of the word of God. We also see that having such wealth can often (though not always) be a dangerous temptation. In fact loving wealth more than the God who allows it is more than a danger. Unless repented of it is a spiritual death sentence. It was, in fact, just that to the man in this parable. Being compassionate, at perhaps considerable cost, to the desperately needy man on his own doorstep apparently never crossed his mind, or his heart.

The reality of that neglect alone showed he loved money more than God because Lazarus was a man made in that God’s image and his welfare was infinitely more important to God than anyone’s excessive material comfort. It should have also been more important for the rich man in this parable. That it wasn’t explains his fate and should be taken as a warning not just to the rich, but to all who may similarly neglect compassion, including those who profess to be followers of Christ.