Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!
- Thread starter Phoneman-777
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
That makes no sense. The beggar is not called a dog in the parable.
You are trying to say that he is but it's not there.
The dogs licking his sores would be humiliation on top of everything else because AS A JEW that would be humiliating and others would consider him unclean for the dogs licking on him. No one would think he was now a dog because dogs licked him. Not would they think he was a gentile because dogs licked him. In no ones mind ever. Then you come along and try to make this up. That because dogs licked him he must be a gentile? That would not embarrase a gentile like it would a Jew.
A Jew would be humiliated by that. A gentile wouldn't care. He's a jewish beggar. It's obvious to everyone who reads it. No one is calling him a dog but you.
And unless these are werewolve dogs that by licking him turn whoever they lick into dogs then you have no basis for calling the beggar a dog. No one else did.
The examples you give of a gentile being called a dog don't apply because no one called the beggar a dog. And if he was a gentile the dogs licking his sores would not be as humiliating as it would to a Jew. Therefore it is most likely that he is a Jew which is why the dogs licking his sore is even included.
If as you say the parable is meant to indicate something else it is obviously meant to suggest that "and moreover the dogs came and licked his sores", thus making him religiously unclean and despised as unclean" Adding insult to injury. This interpretation would only make sense if the beggar were Jewish since a gentile doesn't care about being labeled unclean by contact with dogs.
I think most will agree that my hermeneutic here is far more persuasive than your idea that the beggar is being called a dog by anyone in the story. He is not. Your references to the other scriptures only support that gentiles were called dogs. Not that the beggar was called one at any time in this story. You can't just say that because there are dogs in the story that this means that the beggar is being called a dog. That immediately smacks of illogical, intellectually dishonest, forcing of an application that no one would ever come up with using normal thinking processes or comparing it with those verses you provided since no one is calling the beggar a dog.
It's like you are trying to force an application dishonestly and hope no one notices. We notice. You'll have to give that one up, it failed. The beggar is not called a dog by anyone in the parable. The dogs licking him is an "add insult to injury" statement. A "on top of all that, the dogs licked his sores when he was on the brink of death and too weak the shew them off, thus causing him to endure the humiliation of his countrymen (Jews) calling him unclean because of contact with these dogs.
I think I clearly won that round. You'll have to give up the idea that the parable says he is a dog. It does not.
You are trying to say that he is but it's not there.
The dogs licking his sores would be humiliation on top of everything else because AS A JEW that would be humiliating and others would consider him unclean for the dogs licking on him. No one would think he was now a dog because dogs licked him. Not would they think he was a gentile because dogs licked him. In no ones mind ever. Then you come along and try to make this up. That because dogs licked him he must be a gentile? That would not embarrase a gentile like it would a Jew.
A Jew would be humiliated by that. A gentile wouldn't care. He's a jewish beggar. It's obvious to everyone who reads it. No one is calling him a dog but you.
And unless these are werewolve dogs that by licking him turn whoever they lick into dogs then you have no basis for calling the beggar a dog. No one else did.
The examples you give of a gentile being called a dog don't apply because no one called the beggar a dog. And if he was a gentile the dogs licking his sores would not be as humiliating as it would to a Jew. Therefore it is most likely that he is a Jew which is why the dogs licking his sore is even included.
If as you say the parable is meant to indicate something else it is obviously meant to suggest that "and moreover the dogs came and licked his sores", thus making him religiously unclean and despised as unclean" Adding insult to injury. This interpretation would only make sense if the beggar were Jewish since a gentile doesn't care about being labeled unclean by contact with dogs.
I think most will agree that my hermeneutic here is far more persuasive than your idea that the beggar is being called a dog by anyone in the story. He is not. Your references to the other scriptures only support that gentiles were called dogs. Not that the beggar was called one at any time in this story. You can't just say that because there are dogs in the story that this means that the beggar is being called a dog. That immediately smacks of illogical, intellectually dishonest, forcing of an application that no one would ever come up with using normal thinking processes or comparing it with those verses you provided since no one is calling the beggar a dog.
It's like you are trying to force an application dishonestly and hope no one notices. We notice. You'll have to give that one up, it failed. The beggar is not called a dog by anyone in the parable. The dogs licking him is an "add insult to injury" statement. A "on top of all that, the dogs licked his sores when he was on the brink of death and too weak the shew them off, thus causing him to endure the humiliation of his countrymen (Jews) calling him unclean because of contact with these dogs.
I think I clearly won that round. You'll have to give up the idea that the parable says he is a dog. It does not.
-
1
- Show all
He's "outside" the gate with the "dogs".
Were not the Gentiles "outside" the commonwealth of Israel, shut out from God's covenant, blessings, promises, and referred to as "dogs" which desired a few "crumbs" of God's blessings like that Gentile Syrophoenician woman?
Look, I realize you're not going to be convinced otherwise - what a shame. Immortal Soul doctrine guarantees its adherents will eventually become victims of demonic deception in the form of "familiar spirits", and Eternal Torment doctrine has driven more people either insane or to denounce God altogether than anything else, because it portrays God as the cruelest, most maniacal, despotic psychopath with shoes that seems only Satan himself could fill.
They're finally getting a chance to see how these two doctrines of devils are incapable of standing the test of Biblical scrutiny, and are praising God for it, I assure you. They will not be demonically deceived and will discover in God a character previously unknown to them. They'll gladly commit, perhaps for the first time, all to Him, up to and including their lives for the Gospel, instead of doing the bare minimum to secure this "fire insurance" being peddled by thousands of false pulpit prophets and their equally misguided faithful.
Were not the Gentiles "outside" the commonwealth of Israel, shut out from God's covenant, blessings, promises, and referred to as "dogs" which desired a few "crumbs" of God's blessings like that Gentile Syrophoenician woman?
Look, I realize you're not going to be convinced otherwise - what a shame. Immortal Soul doctrine guarantees its adherents will eventually become victims of demonic deception in the form of "familiar spirits", and Eternal Torment doctrine has driven more people either insane or to denounce God altogether than anything else, because it portrays God as the cruelest, most maniacal, despotic psychopath with shoes that seems only Satan himself could fill.
They're finally getting a chance to see how these two doctrines of devils are incapable of standing the test of Biblical scrutiny, and are praising God for it, I assure you. They will not be demonically deceived and will discover in God a character previously unknown to them. They'll gladly commit, perhaps for the first time, all to Him, up to and including their lives for the Gospel, instead of doing the bare minimum to secure this "fire insurance" being peddled by thousands of false pulpit prophets and their equally misguided faithful.
-
1
- Show all
God is just to cast people into everlasting torments.
Because, the reason why they are cast there is that they never avail themselves of the Cross to be born again.
Because they are not born again, their sin nature has not been dealt with.
And therefore, when they are cast into their punishment, they will continue to add to that which is deserving of punishment in their lives (see Revelation 16:10-11, for example)...they will continue to add sin to sin...because that is what is in their nature.
If they ever "catch up" so that they have paid every penny, because their sin nature has not been dealt with, they will sin yet again and will justly be cast into the furnace of fire once again for the new sins that they commit.
However, realistically, most people will never "catch up" but that which deserves punishment in their lives will exceed the amount of time that they have spent in payment for them every moment that they are in the lake of fire.
Because, the reason why they are cast there is that they never avail themselves of the Cross to be born again.
Because they are not born again, their sin nature has not been dealt with.
And therefore, when they are cast into their punishment, they will continue to add to that which is deserving of punishment in their lives (see Revelation 16:10-11, for example)...they will continue to add sin to sin...because that is what is in their nature.
If they ever "catch up" so that they have paid every penny, because their sin nature has not been dealt with, they will sin yet again and will justly be cast into the furnace of fire once again for the new sins that they commit.
However, realistically, most people will never "catch up" but that which deserves punishment in their lives will exceed the amount of time that they have spent in payment for them every moment that they are in the lake of fire.
-
1
- Show all
It does not say he was outside the gate with the dogs. You made that up to make it fit into your invented allegory.
20And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.
This is obviously a statement of "add insult to injury" A "on top of all that" or "moreover" the dogs came and licked his sores. Which suggests that he was a Jew, since it would be a humiliation to a Jew and not to a gentile.
And those that have a revelation of the greatness of the salvation offered by the blood of Jesus Christ don't accuse God of wrong doing concerning the nature of the punishment of those who reject so great a salvation. Anyone who walks away from God because of the doctrine of eternal punishment were never born again, and never fell in love with His holiness.
20And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.
This is obviously a statement of "add insult to injury" A "on top of all that" or "moreover" the dogs came and licked his sores. Which suggests that he was a Jew, since it would be a humiliation to a Jew and not to a gentile.
And those that have a revelation of the greatness of the salvation offered by the blood of Jesus Christ don't accuse God of wrong doing concerning the nature of the punishment of those who reject so great a salvation. Anyone who walks away from God because of the doctrine of eternal punishment were never born again, and never fell in love with His holiness.
I leave this thread for a while and happen to peak back in and you’re still preaching false doctrines, with no conviction to the contrary, seemingly with more vigor than before. That’s troubling to say the least, but nonetheless the battle with darkness seems to never end.
Revelation 20:10 says that only three persons are tormented forever: the devil, beast, and false prophet.
Revelation 20:15 says they everyone else not written in the book of life is sent to the lake of fire where they are punished with the second death.
I don’t know why you insist on preaching something different than the written word. Why are you doing that?
Revelation 20:10 says that only three persons are tormented forever: the devil, beast, and false prophet.
Revelation 20:15 says they everyone else not written in the book of life is sent to the lake of fire where they are punished with the second death.
I don’t know why you insist on preaching something different than the written word. Why are you doing that?
Amazes me how those who think eternal torment punishment is "just" proceeded to recoil in horror at what everyone immediately recognized as totally unjust punishment when Islamic fundamentalists caged that enemy fighter pilot and set the whole thing on fire and burned him alive.
The only way you can answer "no" to the question, "Shall mortal man be more just than God?" above is to get busy defending unspeakable, horrific, barbaric torture as "just" punishment down here.
You who are in the Eternal Torment crowd, did you call them
"just" or "barbaric"? Of course you did.
"just" or "barbaric"? Of course you did.
The only way you can answer "no" to the question, "Shall mortal man be more just than God?" above is to get busy defending unspeakable, horrific, barbaric torture as "just" punishment down here.
Not only have I presented a more logical hermeneutic that the the beggar is a Jew humiliated by being licked by dogs on top of all else he has suffered, but it is also clear that the parable has the rich man in torment while his 5 brothers are still living.
Assigning the rich man an allegorical meaning of all Pharisees doesn't work becuase other Pharisees (his brothers) are not in torment while he is. This Alllegory if it is an Allegory would have to be interpreted in some way that allows for part of the Pharisees to be in torment while part are needing to warned about the place of torment that awaits them which warning is found in the scripture.
No matter how you allegorize it the parable/allegory would include a place or torment for the wicked dead while as yet the final judgment is yet to come.
The constant effort to make verses like the ones below mean something different than what they say should be an obvious indication that one is being intellectually dishonest and I am persuaded that the conscience of the people who do it is always smitten, but something keeps driving them. Maybe an idol of denominational doctrine or something. Or maybe a "so and so leader and teacher and so and so author of my denomination says this is what it means, and they can't be wrong because they are so smart, so it is ok for me to keep teaching it this way even though my conscience is telling me that this is really bad hermeneutics" which sort of reasoning is equivalent to idolatry because it puts "denomination, teachers, authors, leaders" over the place of God.
Matthew 25:46
And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Jude 1:7
Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
Revelation 20:10
And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”
Daniel 12:2
And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
Jude 1:13
Wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
Mark 9:43-48
And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’
There are many more but I got tired.
It doesn't matter because I know that you will have an explanation for each, not matter how many I post and that the constant necessity to come up with an explanation as to why they don't mean what it seems like they say is not going to trigger a red flag for you. You learned how to ignore those red flags long ago.
Accusing God of being cruel because of the doctrine of everlasting punishment has always been an argument of the unbeliever and does not require a defense other than "believe the scriptures" if you will not be convinced about eternal punishment by reading the scriptures then you will not believe even if one rose from the dead and warned you about it.
I am pretty much done with this conversation, you can have the last word. Unless you come up with something new that we have not already been over many times.
-
1
- Show all
Already answered. You're being stubborn. Your interpretation is not what most readers would get. They would get that "moreover the dogs licked his sores" was the point. An "add insult to injury statement" Not a hidden mystery allegory code that needed to be deciphered. Give it up. Your' trying to force a jigsaw piece in the wrong place and say it fits but it doesn't.
-
1
- Show all
If he wanted to make the point that the beggar was a gentile he would have said a "gentile beggar" or mentioned his nationality in order to make that point as he did with other stories when that point needed to be made like the Samaritan or the Syrophoenician woman. But in this case dogs licking his sores is the point not that he himself was a dog. And the wording is "moreover, the dogs... " which means, "on top of all his other troubles, the dogs came and licked his sore" which point would mean that he would now be considered unclean by his countrymen, Jews. This seems to be a Jewish Beggar and the dogs licking him seem to mark him as Jewish otherwise it might seem like an act of kindness for the dogs to lick him as it has been interpreted that way by modern "gentiles" who have a modern western view of dogs and who are not putting themselves in the mind and culture of a first century Jewish beggar.
Jesus knew how to make a point about the nationality of a person in a parable and this one marks him as Jewish in order for the humiliation of being licked by dogs to be applicable.
Now concede already and let your world come unglued for a minute. It will hurt at first but eventually you will be free.
Jesus knew how to make a point about the nationality of a person in a parable and this one marks him as Jewish in order for the humiliation of being licked by dogs to be applicable.
Now concede already and let your world come unglued for a minute. It will hurt at first but eventually you will be free.
-
1
- Show all
Look, Lazarus is with the dogs, that cannot be denied. Therefore:
Bible evidence the dogs were OUTSIDE the gate:
Bible evidence the dogs were OUTSIDE the gate:
- rich Jews were not allowed to be near unclean animals like dogs, especially inside their gates
- rich Jews especially wouldn't allow dirty, stinky, stray dogs near their tables of feasting
- no dogs were jumping up to get at the food or the crumbs below - they'd have done so if inside the gate
Bible evidence the dogs were INSIDE the gate:
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Dogs, my friend. Lazarus was with the dogs...
outside the gate...
where the Gentile dogs were, outside the Jerusalem gate cut off from the blessings, promises, covenants, etc....
just like that Syrophoenician woman Jesus called a "dog", a fact she admitted to be true, by saying "yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table" ...
the very key to interpreting the parable which for some strange reason refuse to acknowledge.
outside the gate...
where the Gentile dogs were, outside the Jerusalem gate cut off from the blessings, promises, covenants, etc....
just like that Syrophoenician woman Jesus called a "dog", a fact she admitted to be true, by saying "yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table" ...
the very key to interpreting the parable which for some strange reason refuse to acknowledge.
The reason for not agreeing with you on assigning the beggar gentile status simply because the dogs licked his sores where he lay at the gate of the rich man is not "strange." It is normal. Your reasoning is strange. It is STRAINED and it if forced and we know that you see that it is but refuse to concede it.
If you take a survey of bible students who read this most will not agree with your attempt to force it to say that the beggar is a gentile based on the mention of a gate and dogs and trying to connect it to those scriptures you have mentioned.
The custom was that food scraps were tossed to dogs at these gates of these estates and this beggar was laid there, to scavenge what he could to survive another day.
A common scenario from daily life is the format of a parable is it not?
This common scenario of beggars at gates of the rich waiting for scraps thrown out to dogs does not require them to be gentiles. You are severely polluting the parable with your forced gentile application that is not necessary to understand the lesson. There is absolutely no way that the hearers, hearing the word gate and dogs would make the assumption you are trying to force.
Do some research into first century customs and daily life at the time of Christ. There would be far more Jewish beggars at the gates of Jewish rich men in Jerusalem at the time of Christ than there were gentiles.
Most of the beggars and the handicapped that show up in all of the stories in the Gospel records were Jewish.
If most of the beggars that waited at the gates of the rich for scraps to be thrown out to dogs were Jews then one would need to specify that this one was a gentile by making a point other than the gate and the dogs since the hearers of this story would naturally picture Jewish beggars at the rich mans gate waiting for scraps to be thrown to dogs.
Something they saw everyday. Jewish beggars at rich peoples gates waiting for scraps to be thrown out. It is not logical, or persuasive for you to insist that only gentiles would have been understood by the hearers without further specification.
If gentiles were a minority at the gates of Jewish rich people throwing scraps out to dogs and most of the beggars would be Jewish in that "daily common scene familiar to his hearers" then something more specific would need to be said besides gate and dogs to indicate that this beggar being near a gate where dogs were trying to get those scraps, was a gentile.
If many beggars in this scenario were Jewish then no one would think the way you are trying to make us think, "that the beggar must have been a gentile because gates and dogs are mentioned" and they would say your reasoning is strange.
You have assumed that there were no Jewish beggars doing this every day. And what makes you think that is the case? If you knew that most of the beggars doing this. (waiting at gates of Jewish rich people for scraps to be thrown out to dogs) were Jewish beggars, then your insisting that Jesus expected us to understand that the beggar was a gentile would be STRANGE.
If you take a survey of bible students who read this most will not agree with your attempt to force it to say that the beggar is a gentile based on the mention of a gate and dogs and trying to connect it to those scriptures you have mentioned.
The custom was that food scraps were tossed to dogs at these gates of these estates and this beggar was laid there, to scavenge what he could to survive another day.
A common scenario from daily life is the format of a parable is it not?
This common scenario of beggars at gates of the rich waiting for scraps thrown out to dogs does not require them to be gentiles. You are severely polluting the parable with your forced gentile application that is not necessary to understand the lesson. There is absolutely no way that the hearers, hearing the word gate and dogs would make the assumption you are trying to force.
Do some research into first century customs and daily life at the time of Christ. There would be far more Jewish beggars at the gates of Jewish rich men in Jerusalem at the time of Christ than there were gentiles.
Most of the beggars and the handicapped that show up in all of the stories in the Gospel records were Jewish.
If most of the beggars that waited at the gates of the rich for scraps to be thrown out to dogs were Jews then one would need to specify that this one was a gentile by making a point other than the gate and the dogs since the hearers of this story would naturally picture Jewish beggars at the rich mans gate waiting for scraps to be thrown to dogs.
Something they saw everyday. Jewish beggars at rich peoples gates waiting for scraps to be thrown out. It is not logical, or persuasive for you to insist that only gentiles would have been understood by the hearers without further specification.
If gentiles were a minority at the gates of Jewish rich people throwing scraps out to dogs and most of the beggars would be Jewish in that "daily common scene familiar to his hearers" then something more specific would need to be said besides gate and dogs to indicate that this beggar being near a gate where dogs were trying to get those scraps, was a gentile.
If many beggars in this scenario were Jewish then no one would think the way you are trying to make us think, "that the beggar must have been a gentile because gates and dogs are mentioned" and they would say your reasoning is strange.
You have assumed that there were no Jewish beggars doing this every day. And what makes you think that is the case? If you knew that most of the beggars doing this. (waiting at gates of Jewish rich people for scraps to be thrown out to dogs) were Jewish beggars, then your insisting that Jesus expected us to understand that the beggar was a gentile would be STRANGE.
No, I am not preaching false doctrines; but apparently the devil has caught on to the idea that he can label doctrines that are contrary to his as being false and that he may even be able to get people to reject the truth that way.
In Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 13:49-50; Matthew 25:41,46:
There is everlasting punishment in the form of everlasting fire where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
In Matthew 13:41-42, Matthew 13:49-50; Matthew 25:41,46:
There is everlasting punishment in the form of everlasting fire where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.