The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus Explained

Part 9

In Part 9, I will explaining the true meaning of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has been used time and time again to justify the teaching of hell. I have actually heard it preached and in the past when I was spiritually blind, I was unable to discern or interpret the scriptures for myself. Some people will hold steadfast that this is in fact no parable at all but a real story with real facts told by Christ. However, I say that if this “story” is read with the literal eye, one should easily be able to determine that it just doesn’t make sense if we use common logic. There are many holes in this parable if every word is to be taken literally. Part of this problem is that most people do not understand the reason why Jesus spoke in parables. I’ve heard people say that Jesus spoke in parables to make the story easier to understand.  I’ve heard all sorts of explanations but none of those ideas are founded in scripture. Jesus spoke in parables to hide the spiritual meaning of His words because not all people received his message;

John 10:6 This PARABLE spake Jesus unto them: but they UNDERSTOOD NOT what things they were which he spake unto them. [Even the disciples of Jesus didn’t understand the parables and would ask Jesus to explain them and He would explain it by telling them another parable which of course they still didn’t understand.]

Now pay close attention to the following passage of scripture below;

Matthew 13:10-16 And the disciples came, and said unto him, WHY SPEAKEST THOU UNTO THEM IN PARABLES? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to KNOW THE MYSTERIES OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, but to them it is not given. For WHOSOEVER HATH, to him shall be given, and HE SHALL HAVE MORE ABUNDANCE: but whosoever hath not, from HIM SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY EVEN THAT HE HATH. THEREFORE SPEAK I TO THEM IN PARABLES: BECAUSE THEY SEEING SEE NOT; AND HEARING THEY HEAR NOT, NEITHER DO THEY UNDERSTAND. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: FOR THIS PEOPLE’S HEART IS WAXED GROSS, and THEIR EARS ARE DULL OF HEARING, and THEIR EYES THEY HAVE CLOSED; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, AND SHOULD BE CONVERTED, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Reread Matthew 13:10-16 above and pay close attention to the words I’ve placed in bold and underlined. Now look at the two groups of people in the table below;

Those Who Understand the Parables of Christ Those Who Do Not Understand the Parables of Christ
(Spiritually Minded) (Carnal Minded)
Given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven Not given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven
Who has will be given more Who doesn’t have will be taken away from
They see They don’t see
They hear They don’t hear
They understand They don’t understand
Open believing heart Heart waxed gross (hardened heart)
Spiritually converted Not spiritually converted

Now which one of these two groups sounds like you? Do you refuse to believe the word of God which is truth? If so, you willingly accept lies and there isn’t any harmony between lies and truth. You do not understand the meaning of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus because your heart is waxed gross. You do not see, hear, or understand because you are carnally minded. Jesus spoke of spiritual matters. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? If you understand but one parable of Christ, you should understand all parables; Mark 4:13 And he said unto them, KNOW YE NOT THIS PARABLE? and HOW THEN WILL YE KNOW ALL PARABLES? All of the parables have a spiritual meaning concerning the Kingdom of God. If you don’t see this, then you are not spiritually converted. 1 Corinthians 2:14 But THE NATURAL MAN RECEIVETH NOT THE THINGS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD: for they are FOOLISHNESS UNTO HIM: NEITHER CAN HE KNOW THEM, because THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.

If you really desire to understand the spiritual things of God, then you must let go of all your doubt, your trust in the wisdom of men, and you must destroy all of the idols of your heart. When this happens in your life, you will begin the process of spiritual conversion; John 14:26 But the COMFORTER, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you.

I recently did a Google search on the topic of hell because I was interested in understanding some of the ways people try to use this parable as a defense for the doctrine of hell. I came across one site in which the author made it clear that this was no parable at all but a real story about what happens to the saved and unsaved. Of course they didn’t offer any scriptures to support their heretical theory but I thought it was interesting that this person underlined all three mentions of the word torment as it is used in this parable. How convenient for this person to ignore all of the other words Christ spoke in this parable.

So moving forward, we can say with confidence that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is indeed a PARABLE. This parable is actually one of several parables that Jesus spoke of to the masses.  Let’s look at the entire parable and examine the scriptures in Luke 16:19-31;

 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.  Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.  And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

For those of you who continually insist that this parable is a real story and should be taken literally, please answer these questions. Is being rich a sin? Is Abraham’s bosom heaven? Can a literal drop of water do anything to quench someone who is being tormented in real fire? Why is flame singular? Why does the rich man have 5 brothers? Can people who are in hell really talk to people in heaven? Why is the beggar in this story named Lazarus?

If you can’t answer these questions logically, then you have no basis to claim that the story is literal. I don’t believe that Jesus spoke one idle word in his life. I believe all of his words are spiritual with truth in every word that he spoke. If this parable is taken literally, then we would have to assume that Jesus used many idle and insignificant words to convey a message. This is a parable with figures and symbols that need to be explained in order for anyone to understand the meaning.

Even the first 4 words of this parable “there was a certain” should tell any reader that this is consistent with the beginning of many of Christ’s parables.

Matthew 21:33 Hear another PARABLE: THERE WAS A CERTAIN householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

Luke 7:41 THERE WAS A CERTAIN creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

Luke 16:1 And he said also unto his disciples, THERE WAS A CERTAIN rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods.

Now these 3 scriptures do not prove conclusively that the phrase, “there was a certain” is how you determine if Christ is speaking a parable or not. My point is that it is a fact that Christ used this 4 word phrase to begin other parables including the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.

Luke 16:19 THERE WAS A CERTAIN rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

Now let’s identify the symbols for the words Christ used in this parable. What is significant about the rich man and the way he dresses? Why is he rich? One small detail that most people overlook is the color of the rich man’s garment – purple. Why purple? If this is literal then why would it really matter? Well it does matter and I will show you with the scriptures. John 19:5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the PURPLE ROBE. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! [This may seem insignificant but I can assure you that this is very significant. They put a purple robe on Jesus as a mockery because they didn’t really believe that he was the Messiah or the King of the Jews. Purple is historically symbolic for royalty, authority, and wealth.]

Exodus 39:1-2 And of the blue, and PURPLE, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the HOLY PLACE, and made the HOLY GARMENTS FOR AARON; as the Lord commanded Moses. And he made the ephod of gold, blue, and purple, and scarlet, and FINE TWINED LINEN. [Now who is Aaron? Aaron is the older brother of Moses and he was the first priest of Israel which we all know is God’s chosen people.]

The rich man in this parable is a symbol for God’s chosen people the Israelite’s. For thou art an HOLY PEOPLE unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath CHOSEN THEE TO BE A SPECIAL PEOPLE unto himself, ABOVE ALL PEOPLE that are upon the face of the earth. Deuteronomy 7:6 They had the promises of God (spiritual riches) and they lived as a royal priesthood – that is until they disobeyed. Over time, God blessed his people from the beginning. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a FATHER OF MANY NATIONS have I made thee. Genesis 17:5 [Jacob, whose name was changed to “Israel” was the grandson of Abraham, Genesis 35:10 And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but ISRAEL shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. and he had 12 sons which then became known as the Children of Israel (12 tribes of Israel). And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father’s concubine: and Israel heard it. Now the sons of Jacob [Israel] were TWELVE: Genesis 35:22 Out of these 12 tribes, God selected the tribe of “Judah” as the dominant tribe. And the Lord said, JUDAH SHALL GO UP: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand. Judges 1:2 The rich man in this parable represents God’s chosen people, but more specific, the tribe of Judah. This may not seem significant at the moment but this is crucial point in understanding the identity of the rich man. We have another reference in Revelations 5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the LION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof. The lion of the tribe of Judah is Jesus Christ as he descended from this line and it was the Jews of Jesus’s day that he was speaking to and referring to as the “rich man”.

It should be quite simple to identify the beggar Lazarus by sheer comparison. The name Lazarus comes from the Hebrew name Eleazar which means “whom God helps”.  Some will argue that Lazarus is in heaven and heaven is just depicted as Abraham’s bosom in this parable by Jesus. Well if that is true, then we have a major contradiction in the bible. Hebrews 11:13 says, These all DIED IN FAITH, NOT HAVING RECEIVED THE PROMISES, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. This is referring to the prophets and all of the early godly men referred to in the Old Testament including Abraham. How could Lazarus be in heaven being comforted in Abraham’s bosom when this scripture clearly tells us that Abraham died not having received the promises as of yet? Abraham is not in heaven and if he isn’t in heaven, how can Lazarus literally be comforted by Abraham? People will believe anything when they don’t understand the scriptures. We must stay on course with the understanding that this parable isn’t literal but figurative.

Lazarus in this parable represents the Gentiles – the world outside of God’s chosen people. God’s people (the Jews) treated the Gentiles like dogs who were full of sores (spiritual sickness) and in need of rescue (help from God). Ephesians 2:12 That at that time ye were WITHOUT CHRIST, being ALIENS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF ISRAEL, and STRANGERS FROM THE COVENANTS OF PROMISE, having NO HOPE, and WITHOUT GOD in the world: The Gentiles did not have any of the blessings and spiritual promises of God (spiritually dead) but desired to have just the spiritual crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. The Gentiles were laid at the gate (of the temple which represents the entrance to God) but not allowed to go inside never (to have a relationship with God) but things are about to change.

In verse 22, we see that something miraculous has occurred. Both die, but Lazarus is carried away by the angels into Abraham’s bosom and the rich man ends up in hell. What is significant about Lazarus being in the bosom of Abraham? Being in the bosom of someone is a symbol of love and closeness; John 13:23 Now there was leaning on JESUS’ BOSOM one of his disciples, whom JESUS LOVED. Lazarus (the Gentile nation) being in Abraham’s bosom (place of spiritual promise to be loved and close to God) illustrates the roles have switched. Galatians 3:14 That the BLESSING OF ABRAHAM MIGHT COME ON THE GENTILES THROUGH JESUS CHRIST; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Now Lazarus (symbol for the Gentile nation) are now in the place of where the rich man (symbol for God’s chosen people) was. So what was the cause of such a radical change in the status of God’s chosen people and the Gentiles? Let’s see what Jesus had to say about it;

Matthew 23:33 Ye SERPENTS, ye GENERATION OF VIPERS, how can ye escape the DAMNATION OF HELL [Gehenna – God’s Judgement]? The roles switched because of the arrogance, self-righteousness, and disobedience of the Jews (tribe of Judah). They didn’t see a need to help others, they boasted about having the law of the prophets, and they worshiped themselves but things just changed. Listen to what Jesus says to the churches in Asia in Revelation 3:17, Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: [They worshiped the outwardly things not realizing that it was God who blessed them and they refused to bless others. Spiritually they were wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.]

This is what is meant when Jesus says, But many that are first shall be last; and the last first. Mark 10:31 The Jews received the promises first but because of their disobedience, they will be last in receiving the promises of the kingdom of God.

Now the rich man doesn’t understand his condition being tormented in hell and he beseeches Father Abraham for assistance from Lazarus. Notice that the “rich man” identifies Abraham as “Father” which would indicate that he was his symbolic son.  John 8:39 They answered and said unto him, ABRAHAM IS OUR FATHER. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. Here is a reference in scripture were the Pharisees (Jews) are telling Jesus who their spiritual father is but notice how Jesus answered them.  Here is but another clue that tells us the identity of the rich man. How ironic that a moment ago, it was Lazarus who desired crumbs to be fed but now it is the rich man asking for the tip of a finger to be dipped in water to cool his tongue. Matthew 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their FINGERS. Jesus accurately portrays the scribes and the Pharisees as religious hypocrites. They didn’t practice what they preached and now it is they (the Jews) who are requesting assistance from the Gentiles.

The rich man is in hell and we should know at this point that this isn’t the pagan hell of Christianity. For the sake of staying on course with interpreting the meaning of this parable, I will explain what hell represents in this parable. We know from our study on all of the Greek words translated as hell – hadēs as it is used in this parable denotes the “grave”.  Nothing occurs in the grave and it is complete darkness. This is a part of what this “hell” represents for the Jews. They are cut off from God and in spiritual darkness. Matthew 8:11-12 And I say unto you, That MANY shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the CHILDREN OF THE KINGDOM shall be cast out into OUTER DARKNESS: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. The many coming from the east and west are the Gentiles. The children of the kingdom are the Jews. They will be cast out into hell – the grave or figuratively, outer darkness out of God’s good graces. This parable has absolutely nothing to do with the evil pagan hell that is preached in the Christian church.

But this parable states that the rich man is being tormented. So this certainly should convey some level of literalness to the parable, right? Wrong. I have covered this already but I will review it again just to be clear on this. Let’s look at these two verses again in Luke;

Luke 2:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee SORROWING.

Luke 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am TORMENTED in this flame.

Both of these words, “sorrowing” and “tormented” come from the same Greek word odynaō.

In Luke 2:48, the parents of Jesus are described as “sorrowing” when they lost Jesus in Jerusalem after the feast of the Passover. This of course doesn’t mean physical torment but more of a mental/emotional anguish. This torment does not represent any literal physical pain.

Now in Luke 16:24 Jesus describes the rich man being “tormented” in this flame. Remember that the word tormented here comes from the same Greek word that means sorrowing. So the rich man in this parable is feeling mental and emotional anguish from being banished from God into darkness.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that THOU SHALT BE NO PRIEST TO ME: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I WILL ALSO FORGET THY CHILDREN.

For the sake of having a complete understanding of this parable, we need to know that the word “torment” as it is used in verse 23 (and 28), comes from a different Greek word than in verse 24. The word torment in verses 23 and 28 are translated from the Greek word “basanos” which is defined as a touchstone, which is a black siliceous stone used to test the purity of gold or silver by the colour of the streak produced on it by rubbing it with either metal.  It later became known to denote an instrument of torture known as the rack in order to divulge the truth. It is the latter definition that has grown in popular belief as torment due to the depraved nature of the human heart but we see that initially, this word was used to describe a testing of purity in precious metals. This is the true meaning of the word; a testing and this can be described as torment, but not in the physical literal sense.

So the torment that is described in verses 23 and 28 is referring to a period of “testing” but this is all taking place in a “flame”. When most read this parable, they don’t really pay attention to the words. Did you notice that the word flame is in the singular? The rich man is tormented in a flame. What does the flame represent? Fire has always been symbolic for God’s judgment and now it is directed at His own chosen for their lack of faith and disobedience. There is only one thing that this flame can represent and we have it documented throughout the pages of history towards the Jewish people going back to the days of the early church. It is of course, PERSECUTION…

Acts 8:1 And Saul was consenting unto his death. And at that time there was a GREAT PERSECUTION AGAINST THE CHURCH which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, except the apostles. [The rich man (which is the Jews – Judah) are going through a period of testing in this flame and it is persecution. One would only need to do a brief study of persecution of the Jewish people starting from the days of the early church, anti-Semitism, and up to the Holocaust. Due to their persistent disbelief and lack of faith that ultimately led to the crucifixion of Jesus, this represents God’s judgement on the Jews – the tribe of Judah.]

Father Abraham explains in verse 26 that there is a great gulf fixed so that there will be no going back and forth from either side.

And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that THEY WHICH WOULD PASS FROM HENCE TO YOU CANNOT; NEITHER CAN THEY PASS TO US, THAT WOULD COME FROM THENCE.

Now if the rich man is in a literal hell, who in their right mind would want to pass through to the other side? How sick can the human mind get to think that one could literally watch and converse with a mother, father, or child that could end up in this place? The doctrine of hell is so silly and absurd that even a child should be able to understand this with an accurate explanation. Sadly, there will still be those who will refuse to believe because they are spiritually blind. This spiritual blindness is exactly what the “great gulf” represents;

Romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that BLINDNESS IN PART IS HAPPENED TO ISRAEL, until the FULNESS OF THE GENTILES BE COME IN. [There it is, God has blinded the minds of the Jews during this process of allowing Gentiles the same opportunity of receiving love and grace from God.] Is it a surprise that even modern day Jews still reject that Jesus is the Messiah?

2 Corinthians 3:14-15 But their MINDS WERE BLINDED: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the VAIL IS UPON THEIR HEART. [You see, these are things pertaining to the spiritual. What vails due you have upon your heart? Maybe believing in the teachings of men over the truths of God’s word?]

The rich man goes on to plead with father Abraham to witness to his five brothers to prevent them from going to the same place of torment that he is in. What is significant about this verse? Some think that this part of the parable is just filler information but I promise you, this verse was included for a reason. To further substantiate that the rich man is (the house of Judah – Jews), we know that Israel (formerly Jacob) had 12 sons with “Judah” being one of his sons, see Genesis 35:22. If we read Genesis 35, we will see that Judah was born of Leah and she bore (5) more sons for a total of six sons.

Genesis 35:23 The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and JUDAH, and Issachar, and Zebulun: [So Judah – who is the leading tribe of the kingdom of Judah, the royal line starting with King David all the way down through to the birth of Christ who is the King of Kings, had five full blooded brothers.] This is the significance of verse 28 and this provides us with more details that reveal the identity of the rich man. Christ isn’t talking about Judah’s literal brothers who were long dead by this time. He is talking about whole house of Judah represented by the modern day Jews – the Pharisees, scribes, and all of the descendants of the Jews from the original covenant.

The last four verses of this parable describe father Abraham explaining to the rich man that his five brothers have the prophets (the Old Testament scriptures) as a witness. Jesus knew full well that the arrogant religious leaders boasted about their knowledge of the scriptures but their hearts were hardened.  Luke 24:27 And beginning at MOSES AND ALL THE PROPHETS, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. They had the witness from the scriptures but they still continued to believe not that Jesus was the Messiah. The rich man goes on to explain that if one is raised from the dead they will believe (repent). I think it’s actually funny that people claim that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not a parable because Christ identifies a character with a real name as in this case, the name Lazarus. They say that this fact alone is proof because Christ never used a real name in any other parables. My question is, what is the reason Christ used a real name? Was it used only to prove that this wasn’t a parable? Do you think that it is ironic that there is an actual person in the book of John that has the same name, Lazarus who was sick and died but Jesus raised him from the dead which is the same context of the rich man’s inquiry? John 11:43-44 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, LAZARUS, come forth. And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go. [You see, Christ was spoken of and prophesied about many times in the Old Testament. Jesus makes another prophecy in this parable stating that if they won’t hear the words of the prophets; neither will they believe if one is raised from the dead. Jesus used the real name Lazarus because he already knew that he was going to resurrect a real person named Lazarus from the dead to further prove his point in the parable. Not only did they refuse to believe when Lazarus was raised from the dead, they still do not believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. Spiritual understanding really is foolishness to the natural man.

So this parable ends with no further explanation as to what happens to Israel (God’s people) who are now in a state of disbelief and darkness. Is their hope for Israel?

Romans 11:1 I say then, HATH GOD CAST AWAY HIS PEOPLE? GOD FORBID. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. Of course there is hope for Israel. Everything is working according to God’s plan and this period of spiritual blinding of Israel is a part of God’s plan. So what will be the final outcome for all of those unbelieving covenant-breaking Israelite’s (Jews)?

Romans 11:26 And so ALL ISRAEL SHALL BE SAVED: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: This says all Israel, not half or some but ALL and this same “ALL Israel” includes the Jesus hating Pharisees and scribes too.

Now you see that this parable has absolutely nothing to do with hell and we now know if we have been reading this whole series on hell, that the word hell was never a biblical word and it should never ever have been included in the bible to begin with.

Click the link to go to the Conclusion

35 thoughts on “The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus Explained”

  1. But why would Jesus use the illustration of being tormented by fire to explain something, if their was no such thing? I mean, what was the point of that parable of the whole thing was made up?

    Like

    Reply

    1. Jesus didn’t necessarily use the illustration of being “tormented by fire” to explain anything. The King James translators rendered the Greek word “odynaō” as tormented but they also translated it as sorrowing. Parables are not meant to be interpreted literally. In Mark 9:49, Jesus says that EVERY ONE shall be salted with FIRE. Should we interpret this literally or is it possible that being salted with fire has a deeper spiritual meaning? The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has been taught and preached as a literal account that people have a hard time understanding the true spiritual message of the parable.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. This article was clearly not written by anyone who has any clue about Judaism or Old Testament context. Not that I disagree with the premise , just the false support.

      Like

      Reply

      1. You have a right to disagree but your criticism is both unhelpful and meaningless since you’ve offered nothing to support what you say. Everybody has an opinion but to expect someone to embrace your ideas without any justification is pretty darn narcissistic…

        Like

    1. I am very familiar with the testimony of Bill Wiese and I’ve watched several of his videos. I don’t need to watch a 2 hour video of him because I already have strong convictions that he is a deceived messenger of Satan. His teachings are so carnal that I sometimes chuckle when I hear him speak but he really disgusts me. I do not have anything against him personally but the man is a clown. This man has made MILLIONS of dollars with his books and traveling around the world spreading the most evil damnable doctrine ever imagined. He is spiritual huckster, a charlatan that preys on those who are spiritually ignorant. Romans 2:4 tells us that it is the GOODNESS of God that leads us to repentance but Bill Wiese uses “fear tactics”.

      1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.

      Remember that God is LOVE right? So in the above verse, I’m going to substitute the word love with GOD.

      1 John 4:18 There is no fear in God; but perfect God casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in God.

      People who are motivated to serve God through fear are serving a false god. Have you had a chance to read my whole series on the false doctrine of hell? If not, I recommend that you do because I have covered so much on this topic. If you are interested, a fellow by the name of L. Ray Smith wrote a awesome critique of Mr. Wiese’s book 23 Minutes in Hell. I think you should read it…
      http://bible-truths.com/23-minutes-in-hell.html

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
  3. Pingback: The Parable of the rich man and Lazarus Explained | jesusgodblog

  4. For those of you who continually insist that this parable is a real story and should be taken literally, please answer these questions. Is being rich a sin? Is Abraham’s bosom heaven? Can a literal drop of water do anything to quench someone who is being tormented in real fire? Why is flame singular? Why does the rich man have 5 brothers? Can people who are in hell really talk to people in heaven? Why is the beggar in this story named Lazarus?

    1) Of course it is not a parable. Jesus never used names when he was giving a parable. The use of a proper name here tells us this is a literal story about two real people.
    2) The story (NOT parable) never says being rich is the sin that man was sent to Hell for. It’s actually quite clear that it was his greed (failing to share the riches God gave him with his fellow man) that was at least one of his sins.
    3) Anyone who knows anything about the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs would know that “Abraham’s Bosom” is another name for Paradise, a place of rest for the righteous under the Law. The same place that Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be joining Him that day. Nobody ever claimed that Abraham’s Bosom was the same as Heaven (except for those trying to distort the Bible to meet their own prejudices).
    4) A drop of water is better than none at all. The rich man NEVER SAYS (as your insinuate with this misleading question) that the drop of water would completely relieve his suffering.
    5) Flame is singular for the same reason that a whole block of buildings burning down is said to be “on fire.”
    6) Because his parents decided to have six sons. This *specific fact* related by Jesus is yet more proof that this is a story and not a parable.
    7) No, but as I’ve already shown, Lazarus WAS NOT IN HEAVEN. He was in Paradise, and as Jesus said, the people from one could see people in the other.
    8) Because that’s what his parents named him, just like my name is Jack and your name is Sulaiman.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Jack, thanks for your comment, below you will find my responses to your comments…

      1) Of course it is not a parable. Jesus never used names when he was giving a parable. The use of a proper name here tells us this is a literal story about two real people.

      Well it is a parable but if you insist that it isn’t, I understand for you to justify that position you must stretch the boundaries of logic. You have absolutely NO authority to claim that since a proper name is used that it automatically makes the story literal as opposed to a parable. I have heard this ridiculous argument many times and it is quite frankly laughable that anyone would cling to such a weak rationale. You claim that the use of a proper name tells us this is a literal story about TWO real people well what was the rich man’s name and why wasn’t he identified? You think he didn’t have a name or maybe his first name was Rich and his last name was Man? Or maybe this is a half parable half literal account? You speak as if Jesus said, verily verily I say unto you, you shall knoweth when the son of man speaketh a parable for I will never use names in parables. Jesus never gave instructions on what constitutes a parable and what doesn’t so at best, your position is just an assumption based on reasoning that supports what you prefer.

      2) The story (NOT parable) never says being rich is the sin that man was sent to Hell for. It’s actually quite clear that it was his greed (failing to share the riches God gave him with his fellow man) that was at least one of his sins.

      First of all, let me say that every assumption that I have stated is based on the many responses that I’ve gotten from Christians about this topic. I understand that there is so much inconsistency and contradictions within Christianity but that is not my responsibility. With that said, I never claimed that the rich man went to hell, I simply stated that is being rich a sin? Any honest student of the bible can easily discover that the rich man in fact went to HADES after dying. Do you know what “hades” is? I doubt it and since when is life the punishment for sin? The wages of sin is DEATH, not life in some eternal Christian hell. This PARABLE has NOTHING to do with literal wealth or being poor and it doesn’t have anything to do with destinations after death. As long as you read this parable as a literal story then you will never understand the actual message of the parable. The Jewish nation had “spiritual riches” but they saw no need to share the spiritual riches given to them with those outside of their covenant with God, the spiritually sick and poor (the Gentiles).

      3) Anyone who knows anything about the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs would know that “Abraham’s Bosom” is another name for Paradise, a place of rest for the righteous under the Law. The same place that Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be joining Him that day. Nobody ever claimed that Abraham’s Bosom was the same as Heaven (except for those trying to distort the Bible to meet their own prejudices).

      So you admit that “Abraham’s Bosom” is SYMBOLIC yet you try to convince me that this is a literal account? Oh the irony… I have had hundreds of Christians tell me that Abraham’s Bosom is synonymous with heaven. They say that the rich man went to hell and Lazarus went to heaven. There is NO scriptural or reasonable evidence that “Abraham’s Bosom” is another name for Paradise and that is you trying to distort the Bible to meet your own prejudices. The word “paradise” as it is used in the Bible comes from Persian origin and it means a garden as in the garden of God that includes the tree of life. The paradise of God is guarded by flaming swords not Abraham’s Bosom. The two have nothing in common at all. A person’s bosom represented a place of closeness and you didn’t rest on someone’s bosom unless you had a close relationship with that person. The Jewish nation was built through Abraham’s seed as the beginning of God’s covenant with a people chosen to walk in the ways of God. It would be natural for a Jew to rest in the place of Abraham’s Bosom because that is where they belonged but this parable is showing a key change in the state of the Jew and the state of the non-Jew. A Gentile was now resting in the place originally assigned to the Jews. This has nothing to do with heaven, paradise, or hell. Furthermore, Jesus told the thief on the cross on THAT day that he would be in paradise with him but Jesus didn’t go to paradise THAT day, he died and was buried for at least 2-3 days. Maybe you should read Luke 23:43 again and tell me if the comma placement doesn’t influence the interpretation. Jesus made a declaration to the thief on the cross on THAT day not an itinerary. The thief on the cross is DEAD and he will stay dead until the resurrection.

      4) A drop of water is better than none at all. The rich man NEVER SAYS (as your insinuate with this misleading question) that the drop of water would completely relieve his suffering.

      Really? You have got to be kidding me… To think that a person that is literally on fire would be doing anything besides screaming is asinine. It is common sense that a drop of water would do NOTHING to quench someone literally in flames. The point was to illustrate that this language is figurative and not to be taken literally. If someone is engulfed in flames any person with elementary understanding would know that the person needs more than a drop of water for the fire to be put out and the person on fire wouldn’t have to say request it assuming that the person could even talk. If you insist that this is literal, you have to throw all logic out while embracing absurdity.

      5) Flame is singular for the same reason that a whole block of buildings burning down is said to be “on fire.”

      Correct, but we wouldn’t say the buildings are in a “FLAME” now would we? It’s not proper grammar but you can’t apply the same rules of grammar to figurative language. That’s the point…

      6) Because his parents decided to have six sons. This *specific fact* related by Jesus is yet more proof that this is a story and not a parable.

      I think it’s laughable that you think that Jesus Christ, the one given all authority in heaven and earth would include a detail in a parable or any story with no significance whatsoever. From a literal perspective, this detail or *specific fact* has absolutely NO bearing good or bad, positive or negative on this story. It is essentially filler scripture according to you and you assign such unnecessary idle talk to the Savior of the World? Just for the record, parables ARE stories too they just include figurative and symbolic language. If you do not understand the symbols then of course you will not understand the parable. You can convince yourself that it’s not a parable all day long but it won’t change the truth of the matter. The rich man which is figurative “Judah” had 5 literal brothers and this detail is just more evidence that identifies who the rich man is. There is a difference between saying I have brothers as opposed to I have 5 brothers. Why does the rich man need to tell Abraham that he has 5 brothers? I’m sorry but detail matters and if you can’t see that then shame on you.

      7) No, but as I’ve already shown, Lazarus WAS NOT IN HEAVEN. He was in Paradise, and as Jesus said, the people from one could see people in the other.

      Correct, Lazarus was not in heaven but he was also NOT IN PARADISE either as you suggest. Again, the questions I ask are based on Christian interpretation as there are many Christians who believe Lazarus went to “heaven” and there are many Christians that think that people in heaven will be able to see the billions of people being tortured in hell. If that were the case who the hell (pun intended) would want to be in heaven?

      8) Because that’s what his parents named him, just like my name is Jack and your name is Sulaiman.

      Absolute genius! Bravo and way to state the obvious… So you think there is no significance to Jesus Christ picking Lazarus out of all the beggars available? If someone picked you Jack as a character in a story would you not think I’d be logical that there was something unique about you that inspired the writer to include you in the first place? Why would anybody write about you, me or anybody for no reason at all? Jesus included Lazarus in the parable for a reason but the fact that you don’t know the reason doesn’t mean a reason doesn’t exist. It is not a coincidence that this parable references someone being raised from the dead and it just so happens that a real person named Lazarus was in fact raised from the dead. Jesus set it up that way on purpose to prove to the Jewish leaders that they would not be persuaded even if someone was raised from the dead. He proved it literally with Lazarus and with his own life…

      Like

      Reply

      1. Sulaiman,
        Thank you for your snarky, fallacy-filled response to my factual destruction of your “article.” Your inability to actually address my point without resorting to making up false representations of what I wrote only shows how utterly even you know you’ve been rebuked. I don’t have to answer every sentence you wrote, because most of them are nothing but, “Here’s a distorted rewording of what you wrote and my sarcastic but no-fact-given response that I pretend actually proves you wrong.” But I’ll hit a few of the low-lights from your response:

        “Well it is a parable but if you insist that it isn’t, I understand for you to justify that position you must stretch the boundaries of logic. You have absolutely NO authority to claim that since a proper name is used that it automatically makes the story literal as opposed to a parable”
        I have the Bible as authority. Read it sometime if you dare. No parable every refers to persons by name…there are “a certain man” or “a Samaritan” but NEVER given names. Jesus only used given names when he was relating true stories about specific, real people.
        Check it out for yourself if you have the courage.

        “I have heard this ridiculous argument many times…”
        And you’re 100% sure that it’s the rest of the world that’s wrong and not you, correct? Calling something ridiculous is not the same as proving it false. Find some parables that use proper names…go ahead, back up your claims if you can. (You can’t, and I suspsect taht you actually know this and it’s part of why you’re being so defensive.)

        “You think he didn’t have a name or maybe his first name was Rich and his last name was Man? Or maybe this is a half parable half literal account?
        Maybe you think anyone is convinced by your insulting language and pathetic grasping at straws you are making up?

        “So you admit that “Abraham’s Bosom” is SYMBOLIC yet you try to convince me that this is a literal account?”
        What amazing leap of illogic leads you to convince yourself that I said Abraham’s Bosom is symbolic? I said quit clearly is a real place, also known as Paradise. Nothing symbolic about it.
        Is lying about what I said the only way you can find to argue against me? If so, maybe that should tell you somethning about the absolute fallacy of your position.

        “There is NO scriptural or reasonable evidence that “Abraham’s Bosom” is another name for Paradise and that is you trying to distort the Bible to meet your own prejudices.”
        So I take it you completely missed me saying that people who knew “the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs” or is that just another case of you needing to lie and misrepresent what I said because you know you’re wrong?

        “Really? You have got to be kidding me… To think that a person that is literally on fire would be doing anything besides screaming is asinine.”
        And so now you’re resorting to the age-old, “I don’t understand it so I’m just going to make up something and pretend it’s 100% true” method of argument.
        How do you know what someone’s soul does in the flames of Hell? The Bible says there is wailing, gnashing of teeth, and “the cries of their torment” goes up forever and ever. Seems there just might be something besides screaming after all…if only you’d read a Bible at some point in your life, you might recall some of these things.

        “Correct, but we wouldn’t say the buildings are in a “FLAME” now would we?”
        No, but that’s not what he said in the Bible either, is it?

        “I think it’s laughable that you think that Jesus Christ, the one given all authority in heaven and earth would include a detail in a parable or any story with no significance whatsoever.”
        YOU are the one who thinks Jesus would include such a detail in a parable. I said he included this detail in a true story.
        You’re so upset and defensive about being shown wrong you can’t even keep your facts straight anymore!

        “Correct, Lazarus was not in heaven but he was also NOT IN PARADISE either as you suggest.”
        Again, if you knew the first thing about the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, you would know that Lazarus was indeed in the same place called Paradise where Jesus said he would meet the repentant thief.
        Your ignorance does not change these facts, no matter how many times you repeat it.

        “So you think there is no significance to Jesus Christ picking Lazarus out of all the beggars available?”
        But He picked the two real people who lived, died, and experienced the elements of the story. If Jesus had called him anything else, He would have been lying.

        Like

      2. Jack, you are welcome as I try to make it a practice to avoid answering a fool according to his own folly but for the benefit of others I will make a few comments… Your critique is not only littered with assumptions, it is also filled with many unscriptural ideas that I didn’t even really touch on. This is not the place to engage in religious banter for I require nobody to believe or accept anything I’ve written. You can believe and think whatever you want to but don’t think for one second that you can come on to my blog and insult my research and intelligence and not think you’d be me with fire. I have neither the time nor patience to entertain the foolishness of others but I will make this last response to end your little diatribe…
        “I have the Bible as authority. Read it sometime if you dare. No parable every refers to persons by name…there are “a certain man” or “a Samaritan” but NEVER given names. Jesus only used given names when he was relating true stories about specific, real people. Check it out for yourself if you have the courage.”
        With all due respect Jack (not that you’ve earned any), you do not own the bible and you certainly do not have a patent on how the bible should be interpreted. There is no fallacy or false representation of the FACT that what you have stated is nothing more than an assumption, an assumption I might add that is not even originally yours. The Jesus never used personal names defense against parables has been around for some time so you repeating it doesn’t make it true. First and foremost, the mention of a person’s name is not the test of parables and that is only a conclusion you support because it fits along with your bogus theology. Jesus primarily spoke to the Pharisees and the masses of people in PARABLES…
        Matthew 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and WITHOUT a parable He did not speak to them,
        Now you claim that parables include phrases such as “a certain man” or “a Samaritan” and you are correct however, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus begins with, “THERE WAS A CERTAIN RICH MAN”… Do you see a name there? It isn’t until the next verse that we find a beggar named Lazarus so at best according to your contradictory logic; this is part parable and part non-parable which of course is no such thing. If we go to the beginning of Luke 16, we find the PARABLE of the unjust steward which also begins with, “THERE WAS A CERTAIN RICH MAN” but is there any argument that Luke 16:1-13 isn’t a parable? 5 scriptures later, Jesus begins another parable beginning in the same fashion yet you think this story is literal based on the fact that a character was named? That is not only a weak and desperate position, it is biblically incoherent. You really have some nerve accusing me of grasping for straws.
        “And you’re 100% sure that it’s the rest of the world that’s wrong and not you, correct? Calling something ridiculous is not the same as proving it false. Find some parables that use proper names…go ahead, back up your claims if you can. (You can’t, and I suspect that you actually know this and its part of why you’re being so defensive.)”
        Wrong, I’m 100% sure that YOU are wrong and I’m not concerned with what the rest of the world thinks but nice try with summoning the world as if all 7 billion people on this planet endorses what you think. I am not the only person in the world that believes Luke 16:19-31 to be a parable but calling something ridiculous when it is ridiculous is not crime and you trying to swindle your opinion as truth is RIDICULOUS. As for parables that use proper names, I never claimed that a parable could or couldn’t include a proper name; I just stated that name usage doesn’t determine whether a story is a parable. With that said, the parable of the sower in Mark 4:15 mentions “Satan” and the name “Satan” is clearly the proper name assigned to the devil.
        Not convinced?
        Ezekiel 23:1-4 The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem.
        Is this not a parable? The WORD of the Lord is Jesus Christ right? In this parable, TWO people are named Oholah and Oholibah and they are clearly used in parabolic style to represent Samaria and Jerusalem. So what do you say now? Am I still being defensive? What lies will you spew now in your sorry little failed attempt at destroying my article?
        “What amazing leap of illogic leads you to convince yourself that I said Abraham’s Bosom is symbolic? I said quit clearly is a real place, also known as Paradise. Nothing symbolic about it.”
        Maybe I misunderstood you but my misunderstanding was influenced by the fact that I simply refused to believe that somebody could be that stupid. So you think Abraham’s literal bosom isn’t symbolic as it is used in the scriptures? So the righteous go to Abraham’s literal chest after they die? He must have a really big chest but all this time I thought Abraham was dead.
        John 8:53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?…
        I guess I get it now; the righteous go to dead Abraham’s bosom better known as “PARADISE”. A man’s corpse and bones is what you think paradise is? Your scholarly wisdom is unparalleled!
        “Is lying about what I said the only way you can find to argue against me? If so, maybe that should tell you something about the absolute fallacy of your position.”
        Don’t stroke your ego too much I simply invested too much hope in your intelligence… I will not make that mistake again as you’ve provided substantial proof for me to think otherwise.
        “So I take it you completely missed me saying that people who knew “the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs” or is that just another case of you needing to lie and misrepresent what I said because you know you’re wrong?”
        I didn’t miss it; I DISMISSED it as complete and utter nonsense simply because much of what you say is irrational, inconsistent, and contradictory so why would I believe anything you say? What “people” are you talking about and since when does Jewish beliefs have the same authority as the inspired word of God? You place too much power on the commandments and traditions of men. The word “paradise” is only found 3 times in the WHOLE bible all of which are in the NEW TESTAMENT. You have not the slightest clue as to what “paradise” means and once again, it is you that is grasping at straws. Abraham is DEAD and his own people knew that… If he was actually alive in some fairy-tale place called “paradise” I think they may have mentioned that seeing that they were experts in the Old Testament teachings. You simply believe too much Christian fantasy incapable of discerning truth from fiction. This is what happens when you attempt to literalize something figurative… you sound stupid!
        “And so now you’re resorting to the age-old, “I don’t understand it so I’m just going to make up something and pretend it’s 100% true” method of argument. How do you know what someone’s soul does in the flames of Hell? The Bible says there is wailing, gnashing of teeth, and “the cries of their torment” goes up forever and ever. Seems there just might be something besides screaming after all…if only you’d read a Bible at some point in your life, you might recall some of these things.”
        Well, I actually do understand quite a few things but when some buffoon comes to me spewing out the same repeated lies I hear all the time, it gets a little old… You continue to boast about reading the bible but you clearly have no understanding. Reading is one thing but comprehension is a totally different concept that you obviously lack. There is NO such thing as hell… Hell is a damnable Christian LIE but I am not going to repeat what I’ve already written about it here. Furthermore, like I said before, the rich man died and went to HADES not some evil pagan torture chamber called hell. Hades is NOT hell and hell is not Hades… Paul tells us that there is VICTORY over Hades in 1 Corinthians 15:55. Hades is properly defined as the “UNSEEN” and this is where people go when they die. We call this place the GRAVE and when people go to the grave, they do not exist anymore because it is the opposite of life. The “unseen” is the same place you were before you were born… You didn’t exist and in death, you go back to the state of nonexistence until the resurrection. Do you even know what a soul is? In the book of Genesis, we are told that God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a “LIVING SOUL”… So, the dust of the earth + the breath of life = a living soul. Are you following or do we need to take a recess? When a person dies, the body returns to the earth and the breath of life leaves the body returning to its source which is God… Can souls die? Yes… (Ezekiel 18:20) there are no souls being tortured in the flames of your god forsaken hell and there are no souls in the bosom of Abraham’s dead body. Read Matthew 8:12 and tell me who is it that will be wailing and gnashing their teeth… Who are the children of the KINGDOM? There are many bibles of men that translate words in the original languages improperly. I do not expect you to know that seeing your elementary level of biblical scholarship. The book of Revelation is a “symbolic” book and since you are stranded in the land of the literal, it’d probably be a safe bet to stay away from that book. The word “torment” is more properly defined as a “testing” such as how precious metals are tested and refined in fire to increase its purity and this testing period certainly doesn’t last forever and ever. And what the hell does “forever AND EVER” mean anyway as if there is a longer period of time than “forever”? The period of testing lasts for ages upon ages meaning as long as it takes for God to do His business…
        “Correct, but we wouldn’t say the buildings are in a “FLAME” now would we?” No, but that’s not what he said in the Bible either, is it?”
        You are the one that brought up buildings being on fire I just used your silly analogy. The rich man does say that, “I am tormented in this FLAME”… but this is clearly figurative although I don’t expect someone as foolish and carnal minded as you to understand it. Fire is often used in scripture FIGURATIVELY… The tongue is a fire (James 3:6), everyone will be salted with fire (Mark 9:49), heaping coals of fire on people’s head (Romans 12:20), and God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). Are these representations of fire to be interpreted literally or figuratively? Is the tongue a literal fire or is it like a fire in certain ways? Is God a literal ball of fire or is He like fire in certain ways? This is really not that difficult to comprehend if you weren’t so blinded by your own arrogant desire to be right about everything.
        “YOU are the one who thinks Jesus would include such a detail in a parable. I said he included this detail in a true story. You’re so upset and defensive about being shown wrong you can’t even keep your facts straight anymore!”
        Parable or real story, you discount the words of Christ as meaningless because you believe there is no significance to the rich man having 5 brothers expect for the fact that their parents had 6 children. I can only imagine all of the research and extensive exegesis it took for you to come to that conclusion. We are admonished to study to show ourselves approved yet you continually disqualify yourself with every word you write. In terms of value pertaining to the words spoken by Christ, it really doesn’t matter if the words are in a parable or in a real story, the words of Christ are life and they all have significant meaning. The fact that the rich man has 5 brothers is important in understanding the rich man’s identity but I guess why be burdened with this knowledge when you can hide within your own ignorance?
        “Again, if you knew the first thing about the Old Testament and Jewish tradition, you would know that Lazarus was indeed in the same place called Paradise where Jesus said he would meet the repentant thief. Your ignorance does not change these facts, no matter how many times you repeat it.”
        Facts? ROFL… More like more gobbledygook… Blah, blah, blah… life goes on as this is more proof that you place the traditions of men over the word of God.
        “But He picked the two real people who lived, died, and experienced the elements of the story. If Jesus had called him anything else, He would have been lying.”
        Like I stated before, Jesus used Lazarus in the story to prove to the religious leaders that raising someone from the dead would not cause them to be persuaded. Your stretching of the truth only to somehow squeeze in the lies you believe is pathetic and since I have better things to do besides having dialogue with a fool, this will be the last comment of discussion between us. Any further comments from you will not be read or approved, they will be deleted.
        Have a nice day…

        Like

      3. As I stated yesterday, I have neither the time or inclination to entertain any of your nonsense. Your last comment was not read it was trashed and discarded because that’s exactly what it was, TRASH… Go spew your hate rhetoric elsewhere.

        Like

      4. Jack, don’t you have more important things to do besides troll on this blog? Can you not demonstrate a shred of decency and maturity to just let this go? I already told you that none of your comments will be approved so why do you continue to comment? As I have stated before, I do NOT care about what you think or what your opinions are… You have ruined any opportunity for us to discuss anything further because you are rude, narcissistic, and biblically irresponsible. There is essentially nothing you can provide that is edifying because you seek only to stoke your own ego as if this is some battle of wits. Communicating with people like you is insufferable for you talk but don’t listen and you think everyone must submit to your line of thinking. For the love of God just go away and stay away…

        Like

  5. Your posting are awesome Sulaiman i thank God i stumbled on your site and i hope you dont mine me sharing this on my Christian Page Blessings

    Like

    Reply

  6. Ive read articles here beforeand return time to time to gain perspective. this parable has never made sense to me as it has always been presented as aliteral account of heaven and hell and two persons experience. My problem has always been if this were true it is contradiction to so many scriptures. It took me three years my back turned to religion scripture and running from God before I found myself drawn back to God and able to read scripture without the chains and bounds of religion. for some reason I thought to read this parable again and I knew I wasnt understanding the true meaning. Thank you for explaining it in such clear and understanble detail. It is such a joy to finally see the truth after 50 years of blindness.

    Like

    Reply

      1. Lol, that is from birth plus 5 now. I wanted to add that what I went thru to be able to see and understand is a 4 year walk completely lost, unable to se anything but darkness, thru what can only be described as hell on earth. Not the fiery, flaming, nonexistent one. Hard for some to understand when they hear me say it and especially if I describe it(which is extremely rate), but if I could go back I would not trade that experience for anything. Matter fact, I cherish it.

        I tell people these things I learned. Never give up, Never quit, show gratitude for everything(even what you might call “bad” even thought there is no such thing), and love who you are and how you became you even though you may not see who that is just yet and where he/she is going.

        Thanks for noting the comment. I notice and appreciate that you take time to acknowledge. It says alot about who you are.

        Like

  7. Fire is ment as the holy gost since it purifies us from inside out. That is whay they are tormented/sorrowing in a single flame.

    Like

    Reply

  8. I believe all Israel being saved refers to all those who abide in Christ. Matthew seems to make this clear when he refers to Hosea 11:1. He’s referring to Jesus coming out of Egypt, but reading Hosea is referring to the nation of Israel. I believe Matthew is showing us that Jesus is the only true Israel. For He was the only one to ever perfectly keep God’s law.

    In Him is the only way to be saved because by abiding in Him we have been adopted in and become true Israel by faith in Him. All Israel refers to all in Christ. Those before Christ relied on faith in the promise, we rely on the finished work.

    Sadly I am still not seeing every single human being that has ever lived being saved. Unless God is using reincarnation as a means for people to come back and try again. But even testimonies of this, people only remember so much from the past life, and there are some testimonies that are hard to deny, unless it’s clever demonic deception. But as Christ continues to spread around the world, ignorance would be no excuse. And still many might and probably will remain stubborn.

    I hope so, but I’m not counting on it. I’d rather get right now and be assured a place with Him.

    Like

    Reply

    1. All Israel is “all Israel” and it is clear that “all of Israel” did not abide in Christ. The point in me making that reference was to show that God can still save even when we are disobedient. God’s saving power is greater man’s ability to be disobedient.
      Paul tells us that all will be made alive “in Christ” but each man in his own order. I know what spiritual Israel is but the physical always comes before the spiritual. There is a physical Israel that was not in Christ but they will be eventually as Christ will put all enemies under His feet. Everyone will be in subjection to Christ.
      Read Isaiah 26:9…
      When God’s JUDGMENTS are in the earth, the INHABITANTS of the WORLD will LEARN RIGHTEOUSNESS!
      When – means that this judgment is yet future and Jesus speaks about a resurrection to judgment that occurs after death. What makes you think that the “Christ” according to Christianity’s view is actually Christ? Do you think that it’s possible for a religion to create their own idol of Christ? Most Christians don’t even believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of the world.
      There is nothing you can do to be right with God. We are right with God because of what Christ did for us. Your religious works of righteousness mean nothing to God. You cannot earn esteem with God because God is not a respecter of men.

      Like

      Reply

    2. The Bible, properly translated, is consistent in regards to the salvation of all mankind. Through Adam all have sinned just so through Christ all shall be made alive. (only one example of hundreds of other verses.)
      The Greek word for ALL = PAS. Everyone of its kind without exception. Christians never argue that the first all actually means all, but then the second all only means a small portion with the rest being burned in a torture chamber. Paul goes into greater detail in Corinthians 5 on the order of the resurrection.
      The doctrine of hell and an eternal torture makes the Bible a walking talking contradiction. So many verses are a lie if an eternal torture chamber exist.
      Psalm 118 His mercy endures forever. Eternal hell makes this a lie.
      Lamentations 3:31 “For the Lord will not cast off forever.” Eternal hell makes this a lie.
      Psalm 30:5 “For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning.” Eternal hell makes this a lie.
      Esekiel 16:53 “’However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them.” Eternal hell makes this a lie.
      Romans 10:13 “Whoever calls on the name of the Lord, BEFORE YOU DIE EVEN IF YOU NEVER HEARD THE NAME OF JESUS, shall be saved. * Sorry I did a little bit of editing to the verse to keep it consistent with mainstream Christianity.
      I could go on all day. When you read the bible taking out the filter of eternal torment in hell (something that isn’t even mentioned in the OT and you’d think a just, fair, loving GOD would have at least given someone a heads up) it becomes such a wonderful and amazing GOOD NEWS! aka GOSPEL. I challenge you to remove the traditions of men and what you’ve been taught and just read it again, with a correct translation, and you may change your mind.

      Like

      Reply

      1. It’s amazing how Christianity distorts the scriptures to fit its own religious agenda even in the face of blatant contradictions. I can crush Christianity with just 2 scriptures but Christians will ignore what God says as they prefer their dogmas instead. 1 Timothy 2:4, God desires for all humanity to be saved. That’s God’s desire. That’s what He wants but who or what could ever stop God from getting what He wants and desires? That’s absurd. Isaiah 46:10, God will do all that He desires. How does one reconcile those 2 scriptures with what Christianity teaches? It’s not possible.

        Like

  9. “Is it a surprise that even modern day Jews still reject that Jesus is the Messiah?” – You imply that the Jews of Jesus’s day rejected the concept of him being the Messiah. I suggest you read “The Jewish Gospels” by Daniel Boyarin for a better understanding of this topic. Many Jews did accept that Jesus was the Messiah and they also understood the binary nature of the Godhead.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I never claimed that all Jews denied that Jesus was the Messiah but it was clear that those in power did not and they had Christ crucified. Many Christians do not except the doctrine of hell but still it is taught as a fundamental doctrine within Christianity because of its leaders. I don’t know what you mean by binary nature of the Godhead. The word “Godhead” only appears in the KJV once and it’s a weird translation for a word that simply means divine.

      Like

      Reply

  10. I appreciate the time you took to write this. I’m still having a couple of issues with this exposition of the story/parable.

    1. All of Jesus’ parables were either explained by Him soon thereafter in Scripture, or were pretty reasonably clear to the reader.
    2. This story (Rich man and Lazarus) was neither expounded upon by the Lord, nor is it particularly clear to the reader.
    3. I haven’t done a deep dive into the statistics, but a cursory examination tells me half of people (including my pastor) think this is a literal story vs half who think it is a parable.
    4. Of those who think it is a parable, everybody has a different explanation for what it all means. For example, the six sons of Leah fits, but I hadn’t heard that before and the only explanation which would make sense for it would be if His Jewish audience 2,000 years ago would have instantly known and recognized the connection because it was common at the time. But every other reference I can find indicates Jews at the time referenced the 12 sons of Israel, not the six sons of Leah.

    Not saying you’re wrong, but the argument lacks persuasion. If a parable, it shouldn’t take 5,000 words to explain (if like any of Jesus’ other parables).

    Like

    Reply

    1. Thank you for your comment and I’d be happy to follow up on the issues you bring to concern;

      1) All of Jesus’ parables were either explained by Him soon thereafter in Scripture, or were pretty reasonably clear to the reader.

      This is just not true as Jesus spoke in parables to hide the spiritual meaning to the masses of people. When Jesus explained a parable He was speaking only to His disciples but He still had to explain them to them as well.

      Matthew 13:10-13 And the disciples came and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” He answered and said to them, “Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

      Matthew 13:34-35 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

      Matthew 15:15-16 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.” So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding?

      Mark 4:33-34 And with many such parables He spoke the word to them as they were able to hear it. But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.

      2) This story (Rich man and Lazarus) was neither expounded upon by the Lord, nor is it particularly clear to the reader.

      There are several parables in the book of Luke that are not expounded upon so that rationale doesn’t really support your statement. I do understand that your second statement is by implication supported by your first statement but the truth is that parables were never meant to be pretty clear to the reader as I pointed out in my comment to your first statement. There is a difference between today’s readers and the in-person audience that Jesus spoke to directly. The Pharisees had a tendency to perceive that Jesus was talking about them because He was so critical of their hypocrisy.

      3) I haven’t done a deep dive into the statistics, but a cursory examination tells me half of people (including my pastor) think this is a literal story vs half who think it is a parable.

      I think that examination might be off simply because the majority of Christians are indoctrinated into Christian tradition which would tell me that there is a much higher percentage of people who believe Luke 16:19-31 to be literal. Your own statement proves my point because you believe the same thing that your pastor believes. I used to believe that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was literal because that is what I was told but once I studied it for myself I know with 100% certainly that it is a parable. The parabolic language is consistent with other parables and a literal view cannot explain the meaning of that particular passage of scripture.

      4. Of those who think it is a parable, everybody has a different explanation for what it all means. For example, the six sons of Leah fits, but I hadn’t heard that before and the only explanation which would make sense for it would be if His Jewish audience 2,000 years ago would have instantly known and recognized the connection because it was common at the time. But every other reference I can find indicates Jews at the time referenced the 12 sons of Israel, not the six sons of Leah.

      Luke 16 ends with the parable of the rich and Lazarus so there is no further commentary on how the Jews responded but I think it is likely that the Jews knew that Jesus was talking about them based on the fact that Jesus uses the phrase “Father Abraham” in this parable which was a direct reference that the Jews would pick up on. John 8:39 They answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.” I think they knew exactly what He was talking about and there is significance to the fact that Jesus mentions 5 brothers in this parable. We cannot ignore that detail. Jesus descended from the Davidic royal line and is likened as the lion of the tribe of Judah. Judah was always destined to rule over his brothers.

      Genesis 49:8 “Judah, you are he whom your brothers shall praise; Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies; Your father’s children shall bow down before you.

      After Israel was conquered it was through Judah that the Jewish people were reestablished.

      5. Not saying you’re wrong, but the argument lacks persuasion. If a parable, it shouldn’t take 5,000 words to explain (if like any of Jesus’ other parables).

      It is difficult to fill a cup that is already full. I agree that a parable shouldn’t take 5,000 words to explain but it will take 5,000 words to un-explain all of the unbiblical interpretations that have been endorsed due to Christian indoctrination. I have heard a variety of arguments claiming that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable but rather a literal account of what happened to a literal man named Lazarus and some unidentified rich man. The most common argument that I’ve heard is that Jesus never used a persons name in a parable therefore, it must be a literal account. The first problem with that argument is that is assumes that the lack of a persons name is what defines a parable but there is no scripture were Christ gives that instruction. The second problem is that this particular argument just isn’t true. There are parables that identify Satan, Jesus Himself, and God the Father. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus has been used by Christians to justify the damnable teaching of hell and what happens after death. Any honest scholarship would easily dispel such myths but it is difficult for people to let go of their religious traditions and dogmas.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Thank you for your reply. I didn’t need all the Scriptural references as I already know them. My problem was with your explanation, which did not connect the dots very ably. Please try to understand this is not an insult; if your explanation doesn’t make much sense to the reader, it might not be the reader’s fault.

        I did more research online and found a few which were similar to yours but had some differences in explanation. Some explained certain elements better than others.

        This one had the best explanation: http://www.ebibleanswers.com/blog/the-rich-man-and-lazarus/

        By comparing to Josephus’ commentary on the Pharisee interpretation of Hell, the explanation makes MUCH more sense.

        No offense, as I mentioned, but I understand it much better reading his explanation, and I can accept this reasoning. And his theory on the five brothers makes more sense (and I’ve seen it in a couple other areas as well). Consider adjusting your thesis to make it more clear.

        Thank you.

        Like

      2. Nothing you wrote insulted me in anyway I just sometimes write critically which has often been misinterpreted as me being offended. The only reason why I referenced all of the scriptures in my last comment is because you made statements that I felt was in contradiction to what we read from the scriptures. I understand that you are having problems with my explanation but it is not very clear to me what you are confused about besides a couple of minor details. The point of me writing a commentary about the rich man and Lazarus was to show that it has nothing to do with hell or an afterlife which is the most commonly accepted view within Christianity. You are one of hundreds of readers that come on this site and I don’t expect everyone to agree with me or understand everything I say. What I have learned is that people are going to lean heavily towards their own religious bias. I am fine with that because there is nothing I can do about that. People will always bring their own preconceived ideas and notions with them so I expect criticism or a challenge of differing views. I read the article from the link you posted and I don’t see much difference in his article in comparison to mine again – with the exception of a few insignificant details. It appears that we come to the very same conclusions when it comes to the actual explanation the parable. There was no need for me to speak about hell in this article because I have already written an entire series on explaining why hell is a false doctrine within Christianity. If his synopsis helped your understanding more than mine did I do not take that personal. I have far more serious matters going on in my life to be focusing on my intellectual vanity. With that said, I do not believe that Jesus distorted a popular parable to present a crucial truth to the Pharisees just because of Josephus’ commentary on the Pharisee interpretation of hell. For one, Jesus never said hell and hell was never inspired of God to be included in His word. The Greek word Hades simply means to “not see” and it is likened as the grave but not the literal grave site, but the place of nothingness. I always like to explain Hades as the place you were before you were born. So it is not too bizarre to suggest that the rich man died – went to Hades where the dead are really dead – and then lifts his eyes up in the resurrection to judgment. The first shall be last and the last shall be first. It would be impossible for me appease everyone and I’m sure you can respect the fact that it would be asinine for me to adjust my thesis based on the beliefs of one reader. Let’s say I follow you advise and change something but the new version now confuses someone else… When does it end? Where would it get me if I applied that same principle to every reader who disagreed with me or failed to understand my explanations perfectly? I would be changing my convictions all the time which would make me like the wind. His theory on the five brothers is a bit of a stretch for me because I’m not sure that “Scribes” could ever be considered an actual sect of the Jewish nation. He also left out the Zealots among a few others that could easily be described as distinct sects within the Jewish nation. He even offers that he cannot even prove his claim but we no for certain that Judah literally had five brothers. I believe that the rich man in the parable of Luke 16:19-31 is personified as “Judah” but it really is insignificant because I know it points to the Jewish nation as a whole so it’s not a major concern for me if someone else believes that the rich man is symbolic of the Jewish nation in some other way.

        Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.