Lazarus: One Man or Two?

The name Lazarus appears in the New Testament in two contexts: as the name of a beggar in a parable (so-called) who died and as the name of a friend of Jesus whom he raised from the dead.  Are these two men the same individual or two different persons?

The casual reader might get the idea, since both subjects died, both are named Lazarus, and there are no others of that name mentioned in the New Testament, that they are the same.  I thought so for years.  Yet most commentators declare in emphatic terms that they are two indi­viduals.  The following remark is typical: "The name was common among the Jews, and is given to two men in the New Testament who have nothing to do with each other."  But absolutely no reasons are given for this dogmatic statement.  After very carefully searching out the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that I was right all along and that the Lazarus of the "parable" is the same man whom Jesus raised from the dead.  I won't be able to prove this to everyone's satisfaction, for the evidence is circumstantial, but I think I can give some very plausible reasons for that conclusion.  Though I have long held this view, it was a recent archaeological discovery that prompted me to write it down.

Why is it important?  There are several Christian sects who believe that death is oblivion, that the dead "know nothing."  A frequently given reason for this belief is that Lazarus, who was resurrected after being dead four days, gave no account of his experience.  (Here is an argument from silence, and such arguments are about the least effective in establishing a premise.)  But if, as I believe, the two subjects are indeed the same man, then it is quite easily possible that the "parable" Jesus told is the story Lazarus told him of his death experience.

To construct our case, we must first examine another incident recorded in the gospels, that of the woman who anointed Jesus with precious ointment and who washed his feet with her tears, drying them with her hair.  This incident is recorded in every one of the gospels.  Whether these four records are all about the same woman or whether there were two of whom the story is told must now be considered. If the commentators are correct who think there were at least two such in­cidents involving different women, then I have lost my case.  So my first task is to establish with as much certainty as possible that each of the gospel accounts is about the same event and the same woman.

For the remainder of this discussion, I refer you to the attached chart (below essay, click here) listing the salient features of the individual accounts and where recorded.

I strongly believe that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the con­clusion that there was only one such incident and, therefore, only one Simon and one woman who was Mary, the sister of Lazarus.  That this has a bearing on our case will be shown later.  But first, let us con­sider the objections others have brought against this supposition.

In two of the gospels, the woman anoints Jesus' feet; in the other two, it is his head.  This is a trivial objection.  Why couldn't she have done both?  For Jesus stated that she poured ointment on his body for his burial (Matt. 26:12).  It would be far more symbolic for her to anoint both head and feet, an act that would represent the anointing performed on the whole body at burial.  It is a well known phenomenon that inde­pendent but equally trustworthy observers will differ slightly in what they report.  They will be impressed with different details due to dif­ferences in personality and background.  Therefore, the fact that some writers remembered the anointing of "feet" while others remembered "head" is natural and typical of how independent accounts are reported.

Those commentators who see two anointing incidents cite Luke as the exception to the other three gospels.  As I mentioned above, Luke de­clares that Simon was a Pharisee, while Matthew and Mark say he was a leper.  Right here is where many commentators think they see two "anointing" incidents, for they state that no one could be both a leper and a Pharisee.  The Pharisees were fanatics about ritual purity, and since leprosy was the epitome of uncleanness, it would be unthinkable to admit a leper into the sect of Pharisees.  (These commentators are evi­dently more willing to accept the highly improbable supposition of two "Simons" who gave a dinner for Jesus during which a woman anointed him with precious ointment than to attempt a relatively easy explanation of Simon being both a Pharisee and a leper.)  A related objection is that the feast given by Simon was but a few days before the crucifixion at a time when the Pharisees had totally disapproved of Jesus and his min­istry.  It is not likely, so the reasoning goes, that one of that sect would have openly defied the leaders by associating with Jesus.

However, Simon could easily have developed leprosy after he was a Pharisee.  He would then have been out of favor with the sect, possibly even have been excommunicated.  His association with Jesus would not have jeopardized his position in the sect any more than being a leper.  It is also possible, even probable, that Jesus healed him, which is why he honored Jesus with the feast.  Nor is it good logic to suppose that because the Pharisees in general disapproved of Jesus that every mem­ber of that sect would avoid him; as a matter of fact, some Pharisees did believe on him (Acts 15:5).

Another objection to the single-event hypothesis is that Luke says, or has Simon saying it, that the woman was a sinner.  This is probably a euphemism for a prostitute.  The objection is that our beloved Mary of Bethany could not have been this kind of woman.  Here is one commen­tator's exact words:  ". . . the woman of Luke 7 is described as a sin­ner in the dreadful special sense associated with that word in New Tes­tament times.  This is so utterly out of harmony with all that we know of Mary and the family at Bethany as to be a well-nigh intolerable hy­pothesis." ⁶

This statement contains more than a hint of prejudice.  Is it not possible for Jesus to forgive a prostitute, and for her to become a decent, loving, godly, and obedient disciple?

I really see little need to argue this point.  Jesus was a friend of publicans and sinners (Matt.11:19).  For example, we read,

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, be­hold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publi­cans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (Matt. 9:10-13).

He also said that the publicans and harlots would go into the kingdom of God before the priests and elders (Matt. 21:31).  Therefore, Mary, the sister of Lazarus, could indeed have been a harlot.  From Luke's ver­sion, we see that she was truly grateful to Jesus for having been for­given of her many sins (Luke 7:36-50).

In other words, Luke's account gives two pieces of information—Simon was a Pharisee, and the woman was a harlot--that have caused some commentators to regard it as a separate incident from the one at Bethany.  I can see no good reason for this conclusion: rather, Luke's version is in complete character with what we know about Jesus and his ministry.  The fact that Luke depicts a certain  woman anointing Jesus feet with precious ointment and wiping his feet with her hair, the very same story told by John of Mary of Bethany, is far too suggestive that they are the describing the same event to be overruled by any minor, and explainable, objections concerning the woman's character.  By refer­ring to the chart, one can see that out of a total of 18 features found in the four versions, Luke's version has 8, as many as the others.

Let us now put all the accounts together.  In Bethany, a certain dis­ciple of Jesus, named Simon, a Pharisee and a leper, gave a feast to honor Jesus.  Present at the feast was Lazarus whom Jesus had raised from the dead and his two sisters Mary and Martha.  "Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment" (John 12:3).  She was a "sinner," that is, a prostitute, who had repented and was honoring Jesus because he had forgiven her of her many sins.

Matthew says that "disciples" (plural) complained.  Mark says it was "some."  Was there more than one who complained, or are we to ignore the plural nouns of Matthew and Mark?  Luke tells us that Simon com­plained, because Jesus, he thought, could not discern what manner of woman it was who washed his feet.  John tells us that Judas Iscariot complained about the wastefulness of the act, for that ointment could have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor.  He complained, John says, not because he cared for the poor, but because he carried the common purse for the twelve and was a thief who embezzled the funds.

The indication of Matthew and Mark that it was more than one who complained is one of the best reasons for including Luke's account with the rest.  Without his version, we would only know of the one disciple, Judas Iscariot.  Luke makes no mention of Judas but says that Simon complained (albeit, his complaint was different from Judas').  Inciden­tally, John says the complainer was "Judas Iscariot, Simon's son" (John 12:4).  Though he didn't say that Simon was the host, the offhand na­ture of his remark makes me to think that John took it for granted we would know which Simon he had in mind.  (This is strengthened by the fact that he had already informed us that Judas was Simon's son—John 6:71).  Like father, like son.  The Pharisees were said to be covetous (Luke 16:14).  The margin has "lovers of silver."  Guess who sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver?  Here is, to my way of thinking, a very strong bit of evidence for the accuracy of the gospels.  Simon, a covetous and self-righteous Pharisee, was the father of Judas, also a covetous man.

Now let us examine the "parable" of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31).  Lazarus was a beggar covered with sores who lay at the gate of the rich man.  In all likelihood, he was a leper.  Both died.  In Hades, the rich man looked up and saw Lazarus in "Abraham's bosom" (a Jewish expression for Paradise).  After the rich man discovered he could not be comforted by Lazarus, he asked Father Abraham to let Lazarus return to warn his five brothers, so they would not come to "this place of torment."  It is to be well noted that Abraham did not refuse the rich man's request: he only said that it would do no good, since, if they wouldn't hear "Moses and the prophets, neither would they be per­suaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

So, you are asking, what has all this to do with your thesis, that the Lazarus of Bethany was also Lazarus the beggar?  Precisely this:

First of all, although many regard the story of Lazarus and the rich man as a parable, it is not at all certain this is the case.  Luke does not call it a parable.  In no other parable of Jesus that we have are any of the characters named, and in this one we have two:  Abraham and Lazarus.  The very character of the story is against it being a parable.  Jesus' parables are uniformly about this world and its normal everyday activities, whereas the present story is about the other world.  Based on this alone, I have always regarded the story as an actual hap­pening. ⁷

Secondly, Lazarus, a beggar covered with sores, was probably a leper.  It is very probable that Lazarus of Bethany was also a leper.  A recent archaeological discovery makes this all the more probable and plausible.  Recent findings in Israel have provided some evidence that Bethany was a village of lepers.  The late Yigael Yadin translated and studied the Dead Sea scroll called "The Temple Scroll" (because more than half of it contains directions for building and worshiping in the temple.)  This scroll, one of the main canonical works of the sect of the Essenes and held by them with the same esteem as the books of Moses, banned all lepers from Jerusalem.  Three places east of the city were to be constructed for the lepers and other unclean people.  (According to Yadin, ancient rabbis thought that leprosy was carried by the wind, and since the prevailing winds of Jerusalem were from the west, then lepers must be housed eastward of the city.)  Now Bethany was east of Jerusalem.  And we know that Simon was a leper.  Yadin says, "In my view, Bethany (east of Jerusalem on the eastern slope of the Mount of Olives) was a village of lepers.  Thus, it was not that Jesus just hap­pened to stay in the house of a leper (Simon) before he entered Jerusalem; he deliberately chose a village of lepers.  This deliberate choice would have compounded the offense--entering Jerusalem after contact with lepers--in the eyes not only of the Essenes but of the Pharisees as well." ⁸

The picture seems clear enough to me.  Lazarus was a leper and a beggar.  His sister Mary was a prostitute.  They were essentially good people who had fallen victim to the economics of the time that forced them into disreputable means of making a living.  Which brings up one last objection that must be answered.  It has been said that this family was fairly well-to-do since Mary owned an alabaster box of very costly ointment.  But it is also known that even very poor people might have in their possession one costly item, just as today some very poor women possess a valuable diamond ring.  Partly such possessions were consid­ered security for the future, a little bit put away for a rainy day.  Precious ointment could be sold during an emergency, even as Judas suggested.  And it was this very special sacrifice which elicited high praise from Jesus:  "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her" (Matt. 26:13).

Jesus befriended this family, forgave Mary, and healed Lazarus by raising him from the dead.

If (and I want to emphasize "if," for I do not state the conclusion dogmatically), the Lazarus of the parable is the Lazarus of Bethany, we can make the following statements.  After Lazarus of Bethany was raised from the dead, he told Jesus what he had seen and heard.  He had heard the rich man pleading with Abraham to send himself back to warn the rich man's brothers, so they would not "come into this place of tor­ment" (Luke 16:28).  As I pointed out, it is noteworthy that Abraham did not deny the rich man; he only said that it would do no good, for "if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

It would appear to me that God, in his great mercy, heeded the rich man's plea and sent Lazarus back to warn his brothers.  May we not also think that Judas Iscariot, who attended a feast for Jesus where Lazarus was also present, was one of the rich man's brothers?  Or pos­sibly it was his father Simon who gave the feast.  I feel that one or the other of these two was indeed one of the rich man's brothers.  My first choice would be Judas, for, being an apostle known to be covetous, Je­sus may have gone out of his way to warn him of his danger.  The only objection I can raise to this hypothesis is this:  the rich man would ei­ther have had to die before Lazarus, or during the four day interval that Lazarus was dead.  The story Jesus told does not forbid either ex­planation, although it does suggest that Lazarus died first.

Let us consider another point.

It was Luke, and only Luke, who relates the "parable" of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.  He introduces the story with this:

And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him (Luke 16:14).

Luke is the only gospel writer who makes this statement.

Then Jesus tells them the experience Lazarus had while dead, to warn them against covetousness.  But, just as Abraham said, it did no good.  Just as soon as Lazarus was raised from the dead, the Pharisees, upon hearing the news, sought to put not only Jesus but Lazarus to death to keep the populace from following Jesus (John 11:53; 12:10-11).  That Judas was involved in their plot is all too evident.

Two final objections are here considered:  what about the chronology of the raising of Lazarus?  Was it before or after the telling of the parable?  It should be carefully considered by the reader that the chronology of the events of Jesus' ministry is a very difficult thing to establish.  There have been several scholarly attempts to correlate and date the events.  Very few absolutes can be discovered.  In fact, one ancient tradition says that Mark, and presumably Matthew, made no ef­fort to relate the incidents of Jesus' ministry in chronological order.  I give here one reference to a "harmony" of the gospels.⁹ There are 176 separate events listed.  The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is numbered 110; the raising of Lazarus from the dead is numbered 116.  In other words, the events are too close together, considering the im­precision of the chronology, to say with certainty which came first.  Though this author has the parable preceding the resurrection, I con­clude there is no contradiction for the order to be reversed.  Lazarus was raised from the dead before the "parable" was told.

A second objection is that Lazarus is not reported to have said any­thing concerning his death.  Two replies:  the gospels seldom record lengthy discourses by anyone except Jesus.  Secondly, many people who have had "near death" experiences, or have been resuscitated from a "clinical" death, or otherwise have had out-of-body experiences, are very reluctant to relate their story except to intimate friends, for fear of being scorned as hallucinatory or crazy.  I know of three cases my­self.  One man of my acquaintance had a near death experience which he did not even tell his wife.  He did tell a friend (who told me).  Another man, a close friend, would not relate his experience to me because he had told a few who had scorned and ridiculed him.  In the third case, although the subject has given me an outline, she has yet to relate the whole of it either orally or in writing. See also Raymond Moody's Life After Life ¹⁰for similar incidents.

Given all this, I conclude that when one dies, he is completely aware of his situation, either in Hades, or in Paradise.  This is consistent with other statements of the New Testament: for example, Paul says that to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ (2 Cor.5:8).  Paul also tells of one (probably himself) who went to Paradise, "whether in the body or out of the body, I cannot tell" (2 Cor.12:3).  In other words, the experience of being "out of the body" is not to be distinguished from being in the body.  No hint of oblivion here.

As I have repeatedly stated, I do not consider this discussion a proof of my thesis:  I only claim that it opens the possibility for Lazarus of the "parable" to be the same man as Lazarus of Bethany.  If so, then we have a glimpse into the state of the dead.  We know, for example, that the holy angels carry the righteous to Paradise to await the final judgment.  We also know that the wicked are even now being tormented for their sins.  To call this story a "parable" makes it all too easy to deny the reality of both Hades and Paradise, as some do.

A second conclusion is (again, assuming my thesis is correct) that Jesus made ev­ery effort to dissuade Judas Iscariot from the dangerous course he was pursuing.  As Jesus himself said, explaining his delay in returning to Bethany to see Lazarus before he died, "And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe. . . ." (John 11:15).  John 6:64 reads, "But there are some of you that believe not.  For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him."

Who else but Judas could he have had in mind?