Luke 16:19-31 (the full text is at the end of this article) is often used to support the idea of conscious torment after death. It is the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man. In it, both died, and both were alive after their deaths. The rich man was in torment in flame, and Lazarus, the poor man, was comforted. Jesus ‘ message is problematic to most annihilationists because the vast majority of them hold to the doctrine of soul sleep.  But soul sleep is a poorly defined doctrine among annihilationists. What exactly is it?  See the article, Soul sleep problems and questions.

• soul sleep,” the view that death is a state of total unconsciousness, rather than survival in heaven, hell, or purgatory.” ¹Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism (Kindle Locations 503-504). Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition, underline added.
• “When death occurs, then it is the soul that is deprived of life. Death cannot strike the body or any other part of the soul without striking the entirety of the soul.”²Fudge, Edward William. The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment, Third Edition (p. 27). Cascade Books, an imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition, underline added.

Since most conditionalists affirm soul sleep and since they all deny eternal conscious torment, then this section of Scripture cannot be interpreted to support either one. They must explain it in such a way as to agree with their assumptions.

• “Imperative to understanding the function of this parable is to recognize the close parallels to folktales of the afterlife that were widely popular in Jesus’ time. In this parable of Dives and Lazarus, “two major narrative motives can be paralleled to other ancient literature: (1) reversal of fortunes experienced by a rich man and a poor man after death; (2) a dead person’s return from the dead with a message from the living.”³http://rethinkinghell.com/2017/05/16/hypocrisy-not-hell-the-polemic-parable-of-lazarus-and-the-rich-man/
• “In examining the Lukan context to Jesus’ parable and its cultural and sociological implications, the purpose of the parable clearly serves as a harsh polemic against the Pharisees for their hypocritical attitudes of their wealth and blatant ignorance of the poor in their midst. Furthermore, when considered against the background of extra-biblical parallels, it is revealed that the other purpose of the parable is not to provide the reader an eschatological revelation of Hades, but rather, to point the reader to the sufficiency of the Scriptures to show how to love the poor and needy in our midst.“⁴ibid., underline added

So, what we gather from the quotes is that story, which they insist is a parable (I don’t believe it is a parable), is not about judgment and punishment. Instead, it is “to show how to love the poor and needy in our midst.”

Seriously?

The article cited above also says,

• “The parable essentially denies “itself of any claim to offer an apocalyptic glimpse” into details of the afterlife and its geography. Furthermore, the parable points to the “finality of death, and the futility of thinking that someone coming back from the dead could lead to the repentance of the living.”⁵ibid., underline added
• “The point of the parable is focused on the Pharisees, who have “disregarded the will of God so clearly expressed in the Scriptures [of Moses and the prophets], by neglecting the poor” in their midst.”⁶ibid., underline added

Really?

While it is certainly true that we can glean from Christ’s words the necessity of dealing properly with the poor, to say that it denies any details in the afterlife is, in my opinion, ludicrous.  After all, Jesus speaks of people in the afterlife!

The conditionalist would have to say that the account of the conscious bliss and conscious torment of Lazarus and the rich man in the afterlife is not true. It is false. But if conscious torment in a conscious afterlife is false, then would it be wrong for Jesus to imply that it is real? Why would Jesus use a lie (consciousness after death, along with punishment) to illustrate a truth about treating people properly if there is no consciousness after death? It makes no sense.

Now, in that same article, the author said other things to support his position.

• “During the intertestamental period, the doctrine of the immortal soul “altered the concept of Hades” due to “Persian and Hellenistic influence.”
• “Imperative to understanding the function of this parable is to recognize the close parallels to folktales of the afterlife that were widely popular in Jesus’ time.”
• “One story from Egyptian culture is about an “Egyptian magician, Si-Osiris, [who] returns from Amente, the land of the dead, to defeat an Ethiopian magician.”
• “There is also an early Jewish version of this story found in the Palestinian Talmud about a “rich tax collector named Bar Ma’yan and a poor Torah scholar in Ashkelon.”

There’s a fundamental problem with his approach. You see, accusations don’t make something true. The exact same approach is used by atheists when they say that there are pagan cultures that have the idea of the coming Messiah who rises from the dead. So? What of it? Does that mean Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? Of course not. Why does the author narrow his criticism and try and maintain a guilt-by-association-attack upon afterlife consciousness by associating it with paganism? Why doesn’t he associate other “biblical doctrines” with paganism as well? Why? Because he is being selective in order to support his preconception and that is a bad approach that makes his arguments weak.

Let me help him out.

Other “pagan” Christian similarities

In my article Is the immortal soul is a Greek concept adopted by the early church?  I tackle this basic concept of guilt by association and list other so-called similarities between false religions and biblical revelation.

• Annihilation of the soul:  “Certain Jews portrayed death as the end of personal existence. For example, Jesus ben Sirach taught that there are no joys to seek in Sheol (Sirach 14:16–17). Instead, God’s people should pursue immortality through children (Sirach 30:4–5) and a lasting reputation (Sirach 41:11–13).”⁷Barry, John D., David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder, eds. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016, Persian & Graeco-Roman Beliefs, underline added
• Jonah, “A more likely metaphorical use is that of a journey—in the case of Jonah, a journey from the depths (Sheol). This interpretation is collaborated by the connection of this text to the Sumerian myth of Inanna’s journey to the underworld (Landes, “Three Days,” 449).”⁸The Lexham Bible Dictionary, Three Days
• Pagan King lost seven sons as did Job: “Canaanite literature from Ugarit describes the trials of King Keret who, like Job, lost seven sons.” ⁹Dockery, David S., ed. Holman Concise Bible Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1998.
• Son of Man coming with the clouds: The discovery of Ugaritic texts further suggests a link between apocalyptic literature and ancient Near Eastern mythology. These Ugaritic texts provide Canaanite parallels to some of the imagery used in Dan 7. In particular, the biblical descriptions of “one like a Son of Man” coming “with the clouds of heaven” (e.g., Dan 7:13) parallel epithets of Baal as one who rides on the clouds; additionally, Yahweh’s title “Ancient of Days” (e.g., Dan 7:9, 13) is similar to descriptions of El as the “Father of Years” (Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 101–02).”¹⁰ibid. Lexham Bible Dictionary, Near Eastern and Hellenistic Mythology

There are more examples in the article linked above. But these four should be sufficient to show that the eisegetical sword cuts both ways. If the annihilationists want to say that consciousness after death is pagan in origin, then let them prove it. Demonstrate the connection; don’t just say it is so. And if they were to attempt such a thing, why can’t the critics of the Bible say that similar Old Testament and New Testament doctrines found in pagan cultures are also borrowed? Do you see the problem with the author’s approach? I don’t believe he’s done sufficient homework in this regard.

The Lucan Context of Luke 16:19-31 says…

Luke is writing to Theophilus (Luke 1:3) and provides a narrative of the events of the life of Christ. When we get to the section of Scripture under examination, its context is most enlightening. Mr. Loewen (the conditionalist author of the article quoted above) asserts that the passage dealing with Lazarus and the rich man is “not to provide the reader an eschatological revelation of Hades.”¹¹hypocrisy-not-hell It seems that Luke disagrees. Luke arranges the parables of Luke 15 and 16 in a specific way. He mentions where Jesus speaks of the salvation of unbelievers in the parables of the Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7) and Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10). He then gives us the parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) which is about being lost, being found, forgiveness, and the love of God. Most probably, the older Son represents the Jews (Luke 15:31) which is relevant to Jesus addressing the Pharisees in (Luke 16:14-18). The Unrighteous Steward (Luke 16:1-13) is an appeal to understand the true nature of God (the Steward trusted in the goodness of the Landowner which is why he was praised). Jesus definitely connects this parable to the afterlife since he mentions eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9). Jesus mentions the unrighteousness of the Pharisees which will affect their future dwellings (Luke 16:14-18). Then, Jesus speaks of the Rich Man and Lazarus along with the afterlife-consequences of their time on earth. Isn’t this clear that the context of Luke’s writings is not referencing pagan ideas, but the the thematically consistent words of Christ instead?

Here is a synopsis.

1. Lost Sheep (Luke 15:1-7) – Salvation of people
   1. Rejoicing over finding what is lost.
   2. Rejoicing over sinners who repent.
2. Lost Coin (Luke 15:8-10) – Salvation of people
   1. Rejoicing over finding what is lost.
   2. Rejoicing over sinners who repent.
3. Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) – Reconciliation, forgiveness (salvation), and the love of God
   1. The older son represents the Jews
4. Unrighteous Steward (Luke 16:1-13) – Salvation and eternal dwellings, eschatological
   1. The unrighteous are smarter than the Jews in that they are concerned with their future.
   2. The Jews showed a lack of wisdom about their future.
   3. This is eschatological since Jesus mentions eternal dwellings in v. 9,
   4. This is eschatological.
5. The unrighteousness of the Pharisees (Luke 16:14-18) – Salvation lost, eschatological
   1. The Jews were lovers of money.  They showed a lack of wisdom about their future.
   2. The passage is about salvation since Jesus mentions the gospel of the kingdom of God being preached in v. 16
   3. This is eschatological.
6. The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) – Salvation, eschatological
   1. Parable or not, Jesus mentions the afterlife
   2. If conscious torment is not true, then why was Jesus speaking of it?

Luke has arranged the parables for a reason. He is speaking of salvation, its importance, and the necessity of avoiding the horrifying afterlife consequences.  Furthermore, there are parallels between the unrighteous steward and the rich man and Lazarus.

 

	Unrighteous Steward Luke 16:1-13	Rich Man and Lazarus Luke 16:19-31
Rich Man	v. 1 “There was a rich man”	v. 19 “There was a rich man”
Servant/Poor man	v. 1	v. 20
Money	v. 2	v. 19
Give an Accounting	v. 2	v. 21, 25
Future Situation	vv. 3, 9 (Make a living, eternal dwellings)	vv. 23-28 (Hades, Afterlife)
Salvation	v. 9 (eternal dwellings)	v. 23 (in Abraham’s bosom)
Summary	The rich man is a good man.  The servant is not a good man, v. 1 Accounting of this life in the next one Afterlife:  Jesus speaks of the final state and warns people about where they might end up.	The rich man is a bad man The poor man is a good man Accounting of this life in the next one Afterlife:  Jesus speaks of the final state and warns people about where they might end up.

Conclusion

In the Rich Man and Lazarus account, Jesus mentions explicitly the afterlife (even if the conditionalists deny it). If Jesus was only alluding to pagan ideas of the afterlife as part of an overall storyline, and he used conscious torment to illustrate his point, then why didn’t he avoid the pagan teaching lest he misleads people into thinking there is an afterlife, as so many Christians throughout history have maintained?

In addition, the Lucan context clearly demonstrates eschatological importance as The Unrighteous Steward, and the Rich Man and Lazarus accounts are parallel. Both deal with the afterlife. The unrighteous steward deals with eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9) and the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus deals with Hades and the afterlife (Luke 16:23-28). The conditionalist’s biased interpretation that says The Rich Man and Lazarus is dealing with the futility of believing that someone returning from the dead will bring people to repentance, and the Pharisees neglect of the poor, is to miss the point of Christ’s teaching. What we do find in the text that is taught by Jesus is 1) conscious existence of both the good and the bad after death, 2) conscious experience of bliss in the torment of the good and bad after death, and 3) Jesus warning to the unbelievers about their horrible condition after death. The conditionalists have missed the point because they have submitted this section of Scripture to their presuppositions and reinterpreted to fit them. Error begets error.

 

Text of Luke 16:19-31

19. “Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day.
20. And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores,
21. and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores.
22. Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried.
23. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.
24. And he cried out and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.’
25. But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony.
26. ‘And besides all this, between us and you, there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.’
27. And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father’s house—
28. for I have five brothers—in order that he may warn them so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29. But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.’
30. But he said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’
31. But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ ””