CLICK HERE! for an index to previous blogs.
I will get to the Spiritual meaning of this parable in part 2, but first we're going to completely obliterate the idea, that so many in Christendom cling to, that Yeshua was speaking literally.
Unfortunately, the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus has been misused as a theological justification for disregarding or nullifying hundreds of clear and precise Bible verses. Alongside the serious mistranslation of the Greek word aion (which denotes a limited period of time with both a beginning and an end) as "eternity" in English (implying timelessness without beginning or end), I can think of no greater distortion of Scripture than the way this parable has been handled.
Can those who teach that Luke 16 is not a parable, prove their position? No, they can not. Can it then be proved by the Scriptures that this is a parable? Yes, it can.
See my posts on "Whence Hell?" for the definition of "parable" and why and how Yeshua used parables. You can find those posts by clicking the link at the top of this page.
Is Luke 16:19-31 a "parable?" Many in Christendom say that it absolutely is not a parable because a person is mentioned by name and identified as a specific and particular person. The mention of an identifiable person is not, however, the test of a parable. Besides other parables do mention identifiable persons, but they are still parables:
Mark 4:15 - mentions Satan
Mat 13:37 - mentions the Son of Man
Mat 13:39 - mentions the devil
Mat 15:13 - mentions God the Father
2 Sam 12:7 - is said to be king David
Eze 23:1-4 - mentions Aholah and Aholibah
Luk 4:23 - Yeshua applies "Physician" to Himself
According to the popular teaching of this parable, the Rich man is in an eternal Hell of torture and Lazarus is in eternal Heavenly bliss. Well let's be sure then to pay special attention to those traits of character that have separated these two individuals into two entirely different realms.
Below is listed in each column the exact "literal" facts regarding each man's character, virtue and deeds that is the reason for a supposed fate of either eternal Hell or eternal Heaven:
THE RICH MAN | LAZARUS |
| He was RICH ... Ver 19 | He was POOR ... Ver 20 |
| He wore PURPLE & CAMBRIC ... Ver 19 | |
| He made MERRY (Gk: cheerful, & glad) SPLENDIDLY [like Angels-Acts 10:30] DAILY ... Ver 19 | Probably CRIPPLED ("was laid") Ver 20 DISEASED ("full of sores") Ver 20 |
| He had a nice HOUSE ("his gate") Ver 20 | |
| He gave Lazarus FOOD [Gk. psichion, "a particle of food left over"-scraps] Ver 21 | HUNGRY ("desiring to be fed") Ver 21 |
| He DIED and was [Gk. entombed] Ver 22 | He DIED Ver 22 |
| He lifts up his eyes in [Gk. hades "the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE] Ver 23 | Is "carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom" Ver 22 |
| He is in TORMENTS ... Ver 22 | |
He's ALIVE with a BODY, "eyes,' Ver 23 | He's ALIVE with a BODY, "finger "Ver 24 |
| He desires a drop of WATER ... Ver 24 | |
| In life he got GOOD things ... Ver 25 | In life he got EVIL things ... Ver 25 |
He is respectful toward authority ("FATHER Abraham") Ver 24 | |
| He was TORMENTED ... Ver 25 | Was COMFORTED [Gk. parakaleo = "to comfort when in distress"] Ver. 25 |
| He could not cross the GULF ... Ver 26 | He could not cross the GULF ... Ver 26 |
Exhibits LOVE toward his family even while in torment ("I have five brothers") Ver 28 | |
| PLEADS for their welfare ("Nay..") Ver 30 |
Take a close look at these two columns. Isn’t it obvious that what is literally described here gives no support whatsoever to the idea of an eternal life of torment for the rich man or an eternal life of heavenly bliss for the poor man Lazarus?
Can you point to any other passage in Scripture where the character traits listed in the left column result in eternal condemnation? Or where the traits in the right column guarantee salvation and entrance into heaven? Seriously—where in the Bible do we find such teaching?
From what is actually stated in the parable, there is no clear basis for condemning one man or praising the other. We know the rich man ends up in torment and Lazarus in comfort, but the text itself provides no explanation for why this reversal occurs. Nothing in the narrative tells us the moral or spiritual reason behind their fates.
If we insist on taking this parable literally, it contains statements that are illogical, unscriptural, self-contradictory, and simply impossible. Yet when we recognize its symbolic nature, the parable dramatically opens our eyes to God’s dealings with all humanity throughout history. To see the justice and grace in how these two are treated, we first need to understand who they truly represent.
It is certainly true that the rich man enjoyed “good things” in his lifetime while Lazarus suffered “evil things.” But neither wealth nor poverty, in themselves, are biblical grounds for eternal reward or condemnation. Show me the Scripture that says otherwise. Yeshua did teach that it is hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God—and that is undeniably true. But the difficulty does not stem from the mere possession of wealth; it arises from the way riches can grip the heart and turn a person away from spiritual priorities. Some wealthy people walk faithfully with God; others do not. What ultimately determines a person’s standing before God is the condition of their heart as God has shaped it—not the size of their bank account.
I am not defending the rich man or minimizing Lazarus’s suffering. My point is simply this: it is absurd to demand that this parable be interpreted literally when doing so leads to conclusions that contradict the rest of Scripture and basic reason.
Verse by verse now we will see if this parable can possibly be taken literally. Luke 16:19:
Does a well-dressed wealthy man spell sin?
Many readers, upon seeing these words, quickly jump to the conclusion that wealth itself must be sinful. After all, the most striking detail about this man is that he is RICH. But is being rich inherently a sin?
Consider Abraham, who was just a short distance away in the narrative—he was extremely wealthy (Gen 13:2). Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich, Joseph was rich, and David—a man after God’s own heart—was rich. Even Job was the wealthiest person in the entire East (Job 1:3). In every case, it was God Himself who blessed them with prosperity, which is precisely why they became rich.
Being wealthy is not a moral defect or a sin in itself.
Besides, the Scriptures say:
"...God is not to be sneered at, for whatsoever a man may be sowing, this shall be reaping also..." (Gal 6:7)
And "...who is sowing sparingly, sparingly shall be reaping also, and who is sowing bountifully, bountifully shall be reaping also..." (2 Cor 9:6-7).
"...he dressed in purple and fine linen (cambric)
[Greek bussos = COTTON] probably of a fine quality, perhaps a cloth with cotton in the warp and flax in the weft.
Why should we care what color, or what fabric of clothing he wore? Fine clothing is not sinful. What does that have to do with a man's character, virtue, or deeds?
If taken "literally," nothing. But since this is "symbolic" it then is THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE WHOLE PARABLE!
The description of the Rich man's clothing and the position of Lazarus in Abraham's bosom are the two vital keys in understanding this whole parable.
"...daily making merry [Greek cheerful & glad] splendidly..."
Is having a cheerful and glad spirit a sin? I don't think so. Paul says: "...that I may be of good cheer..." (Phil 2:19). David's heart was "glad" (Acts 2:26). And the angels dressed "splendidly" (Acts 10:30).
Is poverty and sickness a virtue?
"Now there was a certain poor man..."
Being poor is no virtue! In fact the Scriptures have a lot to say about poverty:
"...a little folding of the hands to sleep: So shall thy poverty come..." (Prov 6:10-11).
"He becometh poor that dealeth with a slack hand..." (Prov 10:4).
"...The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing..." (Prov 13:4).
Many Scriptures show poverty to be the direct result of sin.
Again, Gal 6:7, 2 Cor 9:6-7. It is God Who makes both rich and poor (1 Sam 2:7).
"...named Lazarus..." [Hebrew: helpless]
Why should we know his name if this is literal? Lazarus was a common name. And who would ever want to be named "helpless?"
We are not given the name of the Rich man. What does it matter one way or the other what his name is if this is a literal story and we don't know which Lazarus this was anyway.
Since this is a "parable" it does matter, and we CAN know which Lazarus this really is and who the rich man really is.
"...who had been cast at his portal (gate)..."
Being thrown out into the street is no virtue.
"...having sores [Greek elkos = DRAWER] (ulcers)..."
Being sick and diseased is not a virtue worthy of Heaven. Diseases associated with "the botch, open sores, boils and ulcers" are very often a direct curse from God in the Scriptures. See: Ex 9:2, Job 2:7, Deut 28:27, 35, Rev 16:2, and many others.
"...yearning to be satisfied from the scraps (not crumbs)
[Greek psichion = SCRAPS--A particle of food which is left over after eating] which are falling from the rich man's table."
Being poor and begging for bread is not a virtue in itself. The phrase "crumbs falling from the table" is an idiom, not a literal description.
A few stray crumbs might occasionally fall, but even then, such tiny pieces would scarcely nourish an ant, much less sustain a starving adult human being.
Besides, if Lazarus is a godly man why is he begging food? Read Psa 37:25.
"...Yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread"!
There is absolutely nothing in the description of Lazarus that would indicate he was a godly man. But when we identify him, there is much to show that he was a Godly man, and that his poverty and sickness was not that of a literally diseased beggar in the street.
"But the curs (wild dogs) also, coming, licked his ulcers."
It is a dog's nature to "lick sores," but they didn't come to this man's house for that purpose. They came there to get "scraps" of food as well.
However, think for a moment. What does this bit of information add to our understanding of this story if it is to be taken "literally?"
Nothing! I mean Yeshua could have told us that, "the sky was cloudy" or "the cock was crowing" or "there were holes in the street." So what? What do "wild dogs" add to our understanding, if it's literal?
But we learn in Scripture that "dogs" represent something totally different from four-legged animals that bark and bite. Here is a real clue as to who Lazarus and his dog companions really represent.
And as this is a parable it was not physical scraps of literal food that Lazarus and the dogs desired. Who then is this Rich man, who being tormented, nonetheless, possessed and disseminated (albeit it small portions) of life-giving food to the poor?
The Rich man, regardless of his character or lack thereof, was obviously blessed of God:
"The Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods..." (Deut 28:11).
And "...bless all the work of thine hand" (v. 12).
As he sewed, so he reaped (Gal 6:7, 2 Cor 9:6-7).
He got "good things in life" and the Scripture plainly tells us that
"Every GOOD gift is from above..." (Jas 1:17).
Lazarus was obviously cursed of God:
"...thou shalt not prosper" (Deut 28:16).
The "botch and scab" (vv. 27 & 29).
He obviously sewed sparingly and reaped even more sparingly. When one is homeless, hungry, and diseased in the street; it doesn't get much worse than this.
If this parable is taken literally, we will find more than a few hundred major problems with the rest of Scripture.
One will have to use a black marker or cut from the Bible most verses dealing with spirit, soul, body, death, resurrection, immortality, grave, hades, sheol, sin, punishment, chastisement, firstfruits, rewards, justification, reconciliation, prophecy, grace, salvation and the sovereignty of God, just to name a few!
All of these contradict the idea that this parable can be literal. All of them.
"Now the poor man came to die and he is carried away by messengers into Abraham's bosom."
Impossible. This statement if taken literally is neither historical nor Scriptural. Many say this represents Lazarus in Heaven. How, pray tell, could Lazarus be in Heaven while his Lord was still on the earth?
"Yet now Christ has been roused from among the dead, the firstfruit of those who are reposing." (1 Cor 15:20).
Abraham wasn't the "firstfruit." Lazarus wasn't the "firstfruit." Yeshua was the Firstfruits! The latter fruit, Paul tells us, "are [still] reposing."
Yeshua plainly said, not only had David not ascended into the heavens, but that
"NO MAN has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven." (John 3:13).
Teaching that this parable is a literal historical fact makes Christ out to be a liar. When our Lord was alive on this earth giving us this parable, He said:
"...NO MAN has ascended up to Heaven..."
So how can it be said that at the same time our Lord was telling us that no man has ascended up to heaven, that Lazarus and Abraham are already up in heaven?
This is not just an interesting sidelight or opinion. This is absolute Scriptural proof that when Yeshua gave us this parable there was no man named Lazarus living in Heaven with Abraham or anyone else. So here then is just one of the hundreds of problems with the Scriptures if we insist this parable is literal.
There are many Scriptures that tell us where a person goes when he "dies". The Scriptures say he "returns" from where he "came." So if he goes to Heaven, then he "came" from Heaven; if he goes to Hell, then he "came" from Hell. But Scriptures do not teach that people "RETURN" to heaven or hell when they die.
Read these plain and simple verses that tell us exactly where man came from and where he goes when he dies:
"...till you return [Hebrew, shub] unto the ground; for out of it were you taken: for dust you are, and unto dust shall you return" (Gen 3:17-19)
"Remember I pray you that as clay you did make me, and unto dust you will cause me to return" (Job 10:9) You cause man to return unto dust..." (Psa 90:3)
"His spirit [the Hebrew word here is ruach, spirit, not neshamah, breath] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa 146:3-4)
"...you gather in their spirit [Hebrew ruach, spirit] they expire [Hebrew gava, breathe out, gasp, expire], and return to their dust" (Psa 104:29)
"For that which befalls the sons of men befalls beasts; ... as the one dies, so dies the other; yea, they have all one spirit; and man has no preeminence above the beasts [in death]: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all return to dust again" (Ecc 3:18-21)
Will any of you seriously contend that BEASTS return to either heaven or hell when they die? Have we not just read in Ecc 3:18-21 that "ALL (both men and beasts) go unto ONE PLACE?" And aren't "heaven AND hell" TWO PLACES rather that "ONE PLACE?"
Here is irrefutable Scriptural proof that when a person dies he returns to the dust. Messengers or angels don't take dead people anywhere when they die. If this is literal, then they would have had to carry a "dead" Lazarus into the ancient cave of a "dead" Abraham. The "resurrection" is yet future (1 Thes 4:16,18).
Remember how Paul told us of Hymeneus and Philetus who "...swerve as to truth, saying that the resurrection has ALREADY OCCURRED [as defenders of a literal interpretation also contend] subverting the faith of some." (2 Tim 2:18)?
Lazarus was carried (in the parable) into Abraham's bosom. Abraham's bosom is not the reward of the saved. Abraham's bosom is not Heaven. Furthermore, no more than one person could fit into Abraham's bosom. It's a parable.
When Yeshua gave this parable was Abraham alive in heaven or dead in his grave? First notice what Gen 25:8-9 says:
"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died ... and his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in a cave..."
When Yeshua was teaching these parables Abraham was still dead. "Abraham IS DEAD" (John 8:52)! After Christ's crucifixion and resurrection (nearly 30 years after) Abraham was still dead.
"By faith Abraham ... sojourns in the land of promise ... he waited for the city having foundations, whose Artificer and Architect is God ... In faith DIED ALL THESE [Abraham included], being not requited with the promises ... for He [God] makes ready for them a city" (Heb 11:8-10,13,16).
Abraham had not yet, as of the writing of the book of Hebrews, received the promises God made to him. Besides Abraham was not promised Heaven, but this earth along with King David (Jer 30:9) and the Twelve Apostles who will be ruling over the twelve tribes of Israel on this earth (Rev 5:10). And the "City," New Jerusalem, comes down from heaven to the New Earth.
By the way, after Christ's resurrection, we read that King David as well was also still dead.
"...David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulcher is with us unto this day..." "For David is NOT ascended into the heavens..." (Acts 2:29 & 34).
So consider: At the time Christ taught this parable, Abraham was STILL DEAD, David (a man after God's own heart) was STILL DEAD and the Scripture specifically tells us that David DID NOT ASCEND INTO HEAVEN. Then to remove all doubt and speculation regarding heaven, Christ plainly stated that, "NO MAN HAS ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN!" Which part of the word "NO" is it that theologians do not understand?
"Now the rich man also died, and was entombed. And in the unseen [Greek hades], lifting up his eyes..." (Ver. 23)
Impossible. He died, was entombed, and lifted up his eyes? Where did he get a body in hades, seeing that they just sealed his body in a tomb? Have you never heard of exhuming a body from a grave? Six days, six months, six years after death, when they open a grave, the body is still there. And it's usually rotten and the "eyes" are decayed away.
"...was entombed...and in the unseen [hades], lifting up his eyes..."
If, as theologians teach that the grave is one place and hades is another place, then no man can have his body "entombed" while at the same time the eyes of his body can be lifted up in a place called "hades." And we know his body was still in the tomb, so how can he be simultaneously in hades with a new body?
And how could this man "literally" lift up his eyes in "hell" seeing that hell is the translation of the Greek word hades which means the UNSEEN or IMPERCEPTIBLE? To "see" one can't be in the UNSEEN, nor can it be a place of NO perception. The parable says that he "died" and was entombed, but that he "lifts up his eyes" in hades. He can't be literally dead and literally alive at the same time and in two different locations.
Hades is a Greek word (and is synonymous with sheol in the Hebrew OT) and it has a meaning. The elements are "UN-PERCEIVED." It can be properly translated into English as "unseen" or "imperceptible." Now how can one "see" in the unseen?" It's ridiculous. How can anyone have "perception" in the "imperceptible?" The dead can't "see". It's a parable.
There is no consciousness in [Heb: Sheol] or [Greek: Hades] (Psa. 146:4)--none. "Sheol" and "Hades" are synonymous in Scripture.
In Acts 2:27 hades is translated from the Hebrew word sheol. Look carefully at these two verses:
"His spirit [ruach] goes forth, he returns to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish" (Psa 146-3-4).
And "...there is no works, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in sheol where you go" (Ecc 9:10)
"Device" [Heb. mchesh- bown--contrivance, intelligence, reason]. Do these two verses in Ecclesiasties sound like "dark sayings?" or "tricky proverbs?" or "difficult parables?" or "deep mysteries?" They are plain, simple statements of facts that any child can understand! But notice how they absolutely contradict the "consciousness in hades" theory.
One more Scriptural proof on this point.
"And it came to pass, that the beggar DIED ... the rich man also DIED..." (Luke 16:22)
So from verse 22 onward, the beggar and the rich man are IN DEATH! Now Psalm 6:5
"For IN DEATH THERE IS NO REMEMBRANCE OF THEE [The LORD], in THE GRAVE who shall give thee [The LORD] thanks?"
So, is it possible to take this parable literally without violating Scripture after Scripture after Scripture? I think not.
What are these "torments" that the Rich man is experiencing? Is it physical pain from having his skin burned off of his body by real flames of fire? What a marvelous thing it is that we can have access to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts from which our modern language bibles have been translated. We can check every word that has been translated into our English bibles. And now we shall do just that.
In verse 23 we have the word "torments" In verses 24 and 25 we have the word "tormented." These three words are not translated from the same Greek word, however. And there is a great reason why. This one point alone will demolish any such theory that this Rich man is actually and literally having his flesh burned by real fire.
Let us now see if Yeshua gives us any indication whether or not this Rich man will ever come out of this place of torments and what these torments really are:
The Greek word translated "torments" in verse 23 is basanos.
From Friberg's Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, we are told that basanois which is a form of the noun basanos, means, "strictly, a touchstone for testing the genuineness of metals by rubbing against it..."
In secular Greek literature this word (basanois) was used figuratively to extract information from a person by torture or punishment.
From the Greek-English Keyword Concordance we read this, torment, literally a touchstone, used to test metals for alloys, [and] then the examination of persons by torture.
Though the Rich man may, indeed, be suffering discomfort or pain, it is not from fire burning his flesh, but rather from being tested and proved through chastisement.
It is an interesting fact of Scripture that except for Paul "punishing" the church, there is only ONE SCRIPTURE in the whole new testament that uses the word "punishment". All others use the word "chastisement" which always carries the connotation of correction and bringing things back to what is right again. Chastisement by it's very definition CANNOT be eternal. There is always a purpose and goal in mind with the use of the word chastise.
In Verses 24 and 25 we will likewise see that the word translated "tormented" does by no means carry a meaning of being physical pained or physically tortured.
"...he is seeing Abraham from afar..."
Impossible. The man is enveloped in "flames" and can clearly identify two personalities from "afar" across a great chasm? Not with human eyes.
"And he shouting, said..."
Impossible. Proof: Psalm 31:17--"...let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the grave [Heb. SHEOL]". There is no talking and no shouting in sheol. If anyone can literally "shout" in hades or sheol they make God a liar.
"...send Lazarus that he should be dipping the tip of his finger in water and cooling my tongue..."
Impossible. If someone were in a literal fire they would not be asking for a drop of water for their tongue. Their skin and eyes would be in much greater pain than their tongue! The tongue is at least somewhat protected in the mouth cavity. Now if anyone is so silly as to debate me on this issue, let them jump into a fire and see for themselves which burns most--the eyes and skin or the tongue? Besides a drop on the tip of one's finger would be less than useless. It would have no effect. None. It's a parable. This language is figurative.
"...I am tormented [pained] in this flame."
Impossible. Yes, it is possible to be "tormented [pained] in flame", however, it is impossible to calmly talk about it while it is happening! If his body were human so as to have a nervous system and feel pain, then of necessity that same body would burn up. It is the destruction of the skin cells that is causing the pain. Within seconds the skin no longer pains (it's dead). Now it is the deeper flesh that pains. But by then the man would pass out and soon die. I mean really, these are things that people completely unversed in the Scriptures understand. It is not literal fire that is causing him this pain or torment.
What kind of "torment" is God talking about in this parable? Is this physical pain from the flames burning his flesh as is taught in Christendom? Not at all! Note that he does not say "flames," but rather "flame," singular!
The Greek word translated "tormented" in verses 24 and 25 is a totally different Greek word than is used for "torments" in verse 23. The Greek word here is odunao and it means to be sorrowful or pained, but not physically, but rather EMOTIONALLY! We can easily see how the Holy Spirit of God used this word in Scripture. Adunao is used only two other times in all Scripture and both times it has absolutely nothing to do with physical torture, but rather with emotional sorrow or pain.
"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 [Greek: adunao, same word translated "tormented" in Luke 16:24 & 25]" (Luke 2:48).
"Sorrowing [Greek: adunao, same word translated "tormented" in Luke 16:24 & 25], most of all for the words which he spoke, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him into the ship" (Acts 20:38).
Now then, does anyone believe that they were physically tortured when Paul departed? Does anyone believe the parents of Yeshua were physical tortured in their flesh while they searched for Yeshua?
Had the KJV translators been consistent they should have translated Luke 16:24 & 25 the same way. He was emotionally "pained" or "sorrowed" and not physically tormented or tortured! The same word cannot mean both "emotionally sorrowed" and "physically tortured."
The Rich man was emotionally pained or sorrowed by the flame (the testing and trials), not tortured, and that's why, as we shall see later, he wanted a drop [a symbolic drop of water] for his tongue and not a barrel of water to cool his body. Let's not be guilty of adding to the Rich man's woes.
"Now Abraham said, Child, be reminded that you got your good thing in your life, and Lazarus likewise evil things."
If this Rich man is really being pictured literally in a hellhole of eternal torture, why then didn't Abraham say to him something like this: "Scoundrel, be reminded that you were a liar, cheat, robber, blasphemer, drunkard, murderer, ungodly, unholy, unrepentant, incorrigible, piece of slime in your life, so burn in Hell for ever." But no, the Rich man is accused of no such things.
Most governments do not sentence people to cruel and unusual punishment for minor crimes. Christian theologians would sentence this Rich man to all eternity in hell fire and I don't see where according to what this parable "literally says" he did anything bad. He lived a life of "good things!". In the literal language of this parable no sin is attributed to him. Not ONE! The rich man got good things, and for that we are told he will have his flesh barbecued with real fire in an eternal hellhole of insane torture? Lazarus got evil things, and for that we are told he will spend eternity in Heaven? Is anyone in this parable said to be literally good or bad?
So we are to take this parable literally? As an historical fact? Okay then, what does it "literally" say? Not what we might think it means but what it actually SAYS:
If one is healthy, happy, prosperous, gives to the poor, is respectful of authority, loves his family, is concerned for the welfare of others and is enormously blessed of God, and has a life of "good" things, he will go to hades and be tormented in flames of fire without water and without mercy.
If one is poor, diseased, homeless, a beggar, shows no thanks for even the little he does receive, has not the faith to be healed, and is not blessed of God, but only has a life of evil things, he will go to Abraham's bosom where he is consoled and comforted in his distress [Greek parakaleo].
Quite frankly neither one is a pretty picture. That's because this is figurative and symbolic language, so of course it doesn't make sense literally! It's a parable.
Here then is the bottom line of the Christian interpretation of this parable:
Live a life of good things now, blessed of God, and you'll burn in the flames of Hell forever.
Live a life of evil things now, cursed of God, and you'll live forever in Heaven.
Doesn't make much sense when we look at it literally, does it? If this parable is literal, Abraham is on the wrong side! Abraham possessed many more of the qualities of the rich man than he did of Lazarus (not actually, but if we take this parable literally)! Abraham was very rich, loved his family, was concerned for the welfare of others, provided for his servants, was respectful of authority (especially of God), was tremendously blessed of God and had a life of many good things.
According to the majority of Christendom's interpretation of this story, Abraham should be in Hell!
Actually Abraham is in hades (sheol), as are all the "fathers." And all the dead ungodly people are there as well. They don't know it, however. It's very quiet in hades, no thoughts, no praise, no anything--it's "imperceptible" and "unseen."
Back to the parable:
"Yet now here he is being consoled, yet you are in pain [adunaoI]."
If Lazarus is in heaven, where are all the saints? Where is there a reward? Where is Christ? Where is the happiness and joy?
Lazarus is "consoled". This word in Greek is used in conjunction with someone who is "in distress." So Lazarus is being "consoled in his distress." Doesn't sound like much of a Heaven to me. The rich man is "in pain". Why? It doesn't say he did anything wrong, or evil, so why is he in pain? Who judged him? When? For what?
Does God sentence before He Judges?
"Verily, I am saying to you, more tolerable will it be for the land of Sodom and the land of Gomorrah in that DAY OF JUDGING than for that city." (Matt. 10:15)
Now I never was good at grammar, but I don't think "will be" is in the "past tense," is it? And again,
"Men, Ninevites, will be rising in the judging with this generation and will be condemning it..." (Mat. 12:41)
The "evil" men of Sodom have not yet been judged. The "righteous" men of Nineveh have not yet risen or been judged. What are we to do? Get the scissors out and clip more verses from the Bible so that theologians can be at liberty to turn a parable into an historical event?
Besides, judging has to do with doing right or setting things right. Punishment is meted out according to the degree of the crime. Punishment is never eternal. And how does eternal torture in hell fire equate to the punishment for "having good things in your life"?
I have heard theologians say, "No, he's in Hell for rejecting Christ's sacrifice." But it doesn't say that. And it is the theologians that demand that this parable be taken literally. Honestly, it doesn't literally say anything about rejecting Christ's sacrifice, does it?
Well, okay, let's look at that premise anyway. I heard a world famous evangelist say regarding the Rich man in this parable, "You go to Hell for rejecting Christ's sacrifice." But, he does err not knowing the Scriptures or history! Not only didn't the rich man literally reject Christ's sacrifice, but it was literally impossible for him to literally do so.
When Christ taught this parable (Luke 16) HE WAS NOT AS YET SACRIFICED (Luke 23)! So how, pray tell, could the Rich man have "rejected a sacrifice" Who had not yet even been sacrificed?
It is an amazing thing to hear world famous evangelists with audacity teach millions of people that our Merciful God has already sent millions of fellow human beings to an eternal burning hell to suffer indescribably in torturous agony, and horrifying pain without mercy, all without a "hearing" or "trial" or "just judgment" and for rejecting a Sacrifice Who had not yet even been sacrificed?
Impossible. The rich man recognized Abraham on sight. Even called him "Father". How could someone who knows Abraham "...hear Moses..."? Moses didn't live until hundreds of years after Abraham? How could the rich man's "brothers" hear Moses? Moses didn't live until far into their future?
You see these are just some of the dozens of problems and contradictions we face when someone insists that this parable be taken literally!
And where in Moses and the Prophets does it warn that if one is rich and blessed of God that when he dies he will go to some eternal hellhole of fire and torture? Or that a poor man cursed of God will go to an eternal heaven of bliss? Now I have a few concordances, but I can't find any such verse. If this parable is literal, then somewhere in Moses and the Prophets it must warn of such a fate for being rich and also promise a heaven of bliss if one is sickly and poverty stricken. But where is there such a teaching in Moses and the prophets? There is no such teaching in Moses and the prophets. This is a parable.
"No, father Abraham, but if someone should be going to them from the dead, they will be repenting."
Impossible. If Lazarus isn't dead, if he's alive in heaven, why didn't the rich man say, "No ,father Abraham, but if someone should be going to them from HEAVEN, they will be repenting"? How could Lazarus, who is alive, go "...to them from the dead?"
"...neither will they be persuaded if someone should be rising from among the dead."
The rich man is now persuaded. Why wouldn't they also be persuaded? Because it will take more than Moses and the Prophets and more than one returning from the dead to persuade them.
Declare unto us the PARABLE...
I heard Matt Crouch say on international television that since the Jews were prophesied to not understand, Christ spoke in parables so that this prophecy would be apparently voided and they would understand. The Scriptures show just the opposite:
"Declare unto us the parable..." (Mat. 13:36)
"declare unto us this parable" (Mat. 15:15)
"...the twelve asked of Him the parable" (Mk. 4:10)
"Know ye not this parable" (Mk. 4:13)
"...His disciples asked Him concerning the parable" (Mk. 7:17)
"And His disciples asked Him saying, what might this parable be?" (Lk. 8:9)
"Now the parable is this: The seed is..." (Lk. 8:11).
This is so simple a child can understand it, but well-studied Theologians fight and twist the Scriptures to fit inside their theological box. It wasn't Christ's explanations that none understood, it was his "parables" that none understood.
The multitudes did not understand Christ's parables:
"This parable spake Yeshua unto them; but they understood NOT what things they were which He spake unto them." (Jn 10:6)
If, as Matt Crouch suggests, Christ taught in parables so that the the masses would understand, then the Scriptures themselves would prove that He failed utterly.
Christ's own disciples did not understand His parables when he spoke them anymore than the multitudes did!
"Therefore speak I to them in parables; because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Mat. 13:13)
"Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower" (Ver. 18)
"Then answered Peter and said unto him, DECLARE UNTO US this parable. And Yeshua said, "Are ye also [like the multitudes] yet without understanding?" (Mat. 15:15-16)
"And he said unto them, know ye not this parable? And how then will ye know all parables?" (Mk. 4:13)
Christ had to explain all the parables to them!
"And with many such parables spake He the word ... but without a parable SPAKE HE NOT: and when they were ALONE, He expounded all things to His disciples" (Mk. 4:33-34)!
It is interesting what Christ said here. If his disciples didn't understand "this" parable, "how then will ye know "all" parables"? There is a continuity among most of the parables. They basically speak of the same peoples and the same events.
The disciples weren't so foolish, however, as to believe that this parable was to be taken literally, anymore than they believed any of the parables were to be taken literally! That's why our Lord explained all the parables to them in private. Read it and believe.
One can only take this parable literally at the expense of contradicting hundreds of other plain Scriptures! I have presented more than ample Scriptural proof that this is a parable and that it cannot be taken "literally"!
Like most parables, it was prophecy not history! If one persists in thinking this parable can be understood completely "literal" in contradiction of hundreds of plain Scriptures of facts to the contrary, I don't know what else I can say.
Before I explain this parable, please notice something. The condition the Rich man now finds himself in was not something he had anticipated in "life". Abraham making reference to Moses and the Prophets, presupposes that the Rich man was familiar with these writings. However, nothing in these writings gives any warning of going to a "fiery place of torment" immediately upon death. Nor does the parable state that this condition of the Rich man [in torment] and Lazarus [consoled in his distress] is permanent or endless. Furthermore, being "not persuaded" by either "Moses and the Prophets" or "someone rising from the dead" does NOT preclude that there is nothing that ever will persuade them in the future! That is false opinion, not Scripture.
The truth is, there are many, many Scriptures that do tell us when and what actually will persuade the "Rich man", "his brothers", "all mankind", and "every celestial being" in the entirety of the universe!
It is that truth of the salvation of ALL that IS the gospel, the "Good News." God is operating to bring all to salvation, (Eph. 1:10-11, Phil. 2:10, I Tim. 2:4-6, 4:10) "These things command and teach" (Ver. 11).
Some of these excerpts are from my personal notes copied from 30+ years of studying... some of these notes are direct copies of various sources - I do not claim to have authored every word of this... it's just a mass collection I've tucked away over the years for my own personal studies... I didn't consider a bibliography at the time I directly copied small excerpts from various authors. Also, any emphasis (underlines, bold text, all CAPS, etc.) noted above was only meant to capture my personal attention as I studied...
No comments:
Post a Comment