Another look at the rich man and Lazarus.

by R. Herbert

Sometimes a little biblical detective work can open new windows into our understanding of New Testament stories and how they relate to us today. We can do this in one of Jesus’ parables.

The priest

The Gospel of John tells us that when Jesus was betrayed, “They bound him and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year” (John 18:12, 13). The apostle John apparently knew some of the high priest’s family and could provide this detail not found in the other Gospels.

Annas was the patriarch of a dynasty of priests. He had served as high priest for ten years (ad 6-15). When he was deposed by the Roman procurator Gratus, Annas maintained a high degree of power through arranging the appointment of his five sons (Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, and Ananus) and his son-in-law, Caiaphas, to succeed him. 

The Jewish high priest normally served for life (Numbers 35:25, 28), so the rapid-fire changes in succession after Annas suggest that he may have worked to keep control of things as the real power behind the temple hierarchy. This maintaining power while technically deposed would explain why Annas continued as head of the Jewish Sanhedrin (Acts 4:6). Perhaps it also explains why, when Jesus was arrested, He was first taken, not to Caiaphas the high priest but to Annas. So real was Annas’ behind-the-scenes power, Luke records that the word of God came to John the Baptist “during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (Luke 3:2).

The plot

In his Gospel, the apostle John gives us another bit of information relative to the dealings of the chief priests. After Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave, John tells us 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 believing in him” (12:10, 11). Again, John may have learned this because of his contacts in the high priestly households. But it is clear that this was a real plot to get rid of not only Jesus himself but also Lazarus as evidence of Christ’s miracle. Although Annas is not mentioned by name, it is inconceivable that such a plot would have been made without the knowledge of the chief priest and his sons.

To understand the significance of this background, we must look at one of Jesus’ parables given at that time.

The parable

In His parable of Lazarus and the rich man, Jesus told His listeners, “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 . . .” (Luke 16:19, 20). The parable continues to say that when he died, the rich man implored the patriarch Abraham from Hades, “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 torment” (vv. 27, 28). [Editor’s note: See more on the interpretation of this parable in the BAP tract Will God Punish the Wicked Forever?].

Notice that although the NIV says “to my family,” the Greek actually says “to my father’s house” (as translated in the ESV and almost all other versions). When Abraham replies, “They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them,” the rich man responds, “No, father Abraham . . . but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent” (vv. 29, 30).

To this, Abraham states conclusively, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (v. 31).

The cast of characters in this parable is unmistakable. Although Lazarus is not specified to be the Lazarus of Bethany, whom Christ raised from the dead, the New Testament does not speak of any other Lazarus. Had it been a different individual, John would have identified him as he does in other instances when multiple people shared the same name.

The rich man dressed in purple and fine linen is surely the high priest Caiaphas, whose robes were exactly as described. Conclusively, the rich man has a father (Annas) and five brothers (brothers-in-law). In the close families of ancient Palestine, brothers could mean blood brothers or brothers-in-law. So the identity of these individuals is clear. If this were not the case, there would have been no reason for Jesus to include five brothers in the parable. The rich man could just have pleaded for his family.

For Jesus’ original hearers, it was clear in His parable that, just as the rich man’s father and brothers would not believe even after the return of Lazarus from the dead, so the actual high priestly family had not believed when the real Lazarus had indeed been raised. Understood this way, the story of Lazarus and the rich man is paralleled by several other parables in which Jesus used actual historical situations of His day (e.g., Luke 14:28-33; 19:11-27).

Discretion

We can take a practical lesson from the unfailing discretion of Jesus. Although His audience may have recognized the characters in His parable, Jesus did not identify them by name. Jesus never did that, though He could have publicly accused and discredited specific individuals on many occasions. In our own time of heightened political invective, this is an example for every Christian to consider. May we, too, follow Jesus’ discretion in what we say about others.