Interpreting the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus: It's Really Good News!

I think it refers to something other worldly, that will happen to the wicked dead.

It is described as fire and worms because Jesus is using earthly frames of reference in order to communicate to our finite earthly and natural understanding.

We can't know what it is that is described as worms exactly.

I have heard many examples, like eternal regret, or a constant desire for things that they can't have, such as the drop of water... the worm is always eating on them is a description of a torment as a result of their sins that continue to judge them, be it unfulfilled lusts, everlasting regret, rage and gnashing of teeth, all of these paint a picture that is sufficient to communicate the horrors of that judgment but can't actually describe it perfectly since it is other worldly and not really fire and worms as we understand physical things like that.

What I do not see is that there is any hint of repentance or sorrow for sins among the wicked dead. They continue to sin in attitude and disposition and their worm never dies.

The wicked don't want to go to heaven. They would never be happy there. They don't desire heaven even when in hell. They don't repent and they don't receive mercy.

I find that the statement that God is merciful to the wicked dead by snuffing out their existence is not what the bible communicates. It seems to me that the message about Mercy is for those who receive it now by faith in Christ and that the wicked dead have missed their chance for mercy.

I think most people get that.

As we are taught in first year of bible school concerning biblical literature, parables usually have a statement in them that could stand alone but by being included in a parable the parable serves to make the point more clear, or give it more impact.

The main lessons or points in a parable are often mentioned at or near the end. Therefore interpreting this as a parable the lesson would be; "If they don't believe what the scriptures say about 'this place of torment that you want Lazarus to warn them about' then they won't believe if he comes back from the dead to warn them about it."

The Ah HA! moment, or the Lesson that the listener would grasp is that faith in the scriptures is the only thing that has the power to work the true repentance necessary to make them believe that there is a place of torment awaiting for them if they don't change. That experiencing a visit from a ghost or a supernatural miracle of one rising from the dead to warn them will not have the effective heart changing impact that the rich man thinks it will.

Those that heard the "parable" would get it. They would grasp the point that believing the scriptures is how one can be changed and get on the path to righteousness above to escape the hell beneath.

Saying much, does not mean you said anything wise or even true. Let's start at the beginning then, and show you from the text itself:

Gen 2:7: "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Does the phrase, in Genesis 2:7, "became a living soul" include as a portion of that "living soul" the "dust of the earth"?

Thank you for your candid and plain reply.

There was the problem all along. Rabbis had such schools too. Look at the complete mess of theology, doctrine, practice and prophecy they made in the NT.

You do not understand what God's mercy is then towards the unjust. It is a powerful means of punishment, see the flood in the days of Noah. God sent that flood in His mercy.

Mat 5:45: "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.".

Even the old movie, 'old yeller' gets it.

the beginning is before man -- Genesis 1:20 is the first record of a living soul ((Hebrew: nephesh chayyah))

what English Bibles put as 'living creatures' there is in fact, living souls. let the waters aboud with an abundance of them.
why is there no mention of dust?

or rather -- why is dust prevalent in the record of the creation of Adam, but not of the other living souls?
were the bodies of the living beings of the sea and the air and the field also made from dust? then why isn't it mentioned until man?
or were the bodies of these souls not made of dust? why then the difference?

but the other animals flesh returns to dust, just like the animal mankind ((Ecc. 3:18))
so we may intuit that yes -- the bodies of the other living souls were formed out of dust just like us, and were given the breath of life just like us ((Gen. 7:22))

so the question is why does God draw our attention to dust when He speaks of creating the first human?
even the name He gives him, Adam, means dirt; the ground.
if He creates the flesh of all these living souls from dust, in the sight of the angels - why not mention dust until Genesis 2:7?

sure it can. good grief had Carl Schultz ever heard of Abraham's Bosom? read any Talmud?
but from scripture, here's two witnesses:


here every indication in scripture is that this is Samuel himself.
people will scoff and say it is a demon, but the text itself gives no support to that. the text plainly calls him Samuel and speaks exactly as though it is Samuel. meanwhile Samuel's body is turning to dust; he has died ((in the sense of the separation of the spirit from the body)) - so here is the nephesh of Samuel, the person Samuel, disembodied.



second witness is briefer but even more direct:

clearly the soul of the child is not annihilated, because Elijah prays for it to return to the body, not for a copy of it to be created and replace the old one that ceased to exist.

clearly the soul is distinct from the body, because it is gone, and returns

so we have very clearly here, a soul that continues in existence after the spirit has separated from the body.
i.e. disembodied soul.


**bang**
the narratives of @Phoneman-777 & of @ChristianSubMissionary are debunked.
recommend they get new narratives. lol


people here can rant and rave all they want, but the Word of God doesn't pass away.
it is in God that my trust is placed, not in what men who think themselves scholars say.

And every other usage of hell in scripture…

When the word fire is used as in the revelation passage you quoted, it is not necessarily a reference to hell.

That’s your private interpretation. Take it literal. The worm does not die. The sons of the devil will receive bodies like him in the form of a worm.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

When you consider the following evidence, there's no other way to take Peter's words but litearlly:

Are the wicked at this moment in fiery punishment,
or is that punishment yet still future???
When do the righteous receive their eternal reward,
and the wicked their reward of fiery punishment???

"And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them." - Revelation 20:9 KJVh

Brother, if there was ever a private interpretation, it is THIS!

The Scripture describes only TWO kinds of bodies available for humans to wear, the mortal one we got now and the immortal one that's only granted to the righteous because they heeded God's instructions to "seek" immortality - nothing about a ridiculous "spiritual body we take to heaven and use until the resurrection"... nothing about your "worm body" either.

Therefore, the wicked are raised in the resurrection of the damned with a restored, mortal body with which they are cast in the Lake of Fire to suffer the Second Death, eternal death, a death from which there will be no resurrection.

The bottom line is this:

Because of the Immortal Soul/Eternal Torment crowd's refusal to accept that:

1) A "soul" is the whole comprised of two parts: body and breath of life
2) There are only two kinds of bodies: the mortal and the immortal
3) That at death, the body returns to the dust, the Spirit to God, and the soul ceases to be

...they are left only with either "mysteries which we can't explain" or "explanations" that are fraught with Biblical contradictions concerning the afterlife.

Jeremiah prophesied several times that Jerusalem would be burned with fire "that shall not be quenched" followed by Jerusalem being burned completely to the ground...and somehow you guys still can't see that "unquenchable fire" doesn't mean "everlasting fire", but simply means "a fire no one is going to be able to extinguish that will eventually burn itself out" because that's EXACTLY what happened to Jerusalem.

Again, of the four words in the Bible for "hell", only "gehenna" refers to the "fiery, burning blazing hell" -- it's the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Hinnom" referring to the "Valley of Hinnom", the Jerusalem city dump. The place was kept burning and the carcasses which the fire didn't reach were food for the maggots.

What better object lesson for Jesus - Who continually drew upon His surroundings for His parable and object lessons - to teach the people about what would happen to the wicked at the end of the world. Is the Valley of Hinnom still burning today?

I'd like to see that verse where the wicked are granted "worm bodies".

And by "everlasting", Jesus is refers not to the process, but the result...

...just like "eternal redemption" doesn't mean Jesus will be crucified over and over for all eternity,

...just like "eternal judgment" doesn't mean God will slam His gavel saying "order in the court" for all eternity,

...just like "everlasting destruction" doesn't mean "the destruction goes on for eternity".

"Everlasting" and "eternal" results, not processes.

The Fathers follow the line of the Apostles. Some were taught by the Apostles.

There is a big elephant in the room as regards to his interpretation of the beggar being allegory for gentiles. There is nothing in the "parable/allegory" as to suggest that he is identified as a gentile. The fact that dogs licked his sores does not make him a dog. Therefore saying that the Jews called gentiles dogs and the beggar is a dog because the dogs licked his sores is seriously rough handling and an awkward attempt to assign dog status to the beggar. The reasonable mind questions this allegorical application.

If anything, the dogs licking his sores suggest that the beggar is a Jew and as such would be suffering humiliation on top of his other miserly conditions and ill health because the dogs being an unclean animal and their licking him would put him in the category of defiled or unclean as it applied to various religious contexts. A gentile would not necessarily have such qualms about dogs and so the act of dogs licking him suggests further humiliation FOR A JEW.

My interpretation that the dogs humiliating him as a JEW is far more reasonable than saying that dogs licking him makes him a dog. That is really bad hermeneutics and I can't believe you just repeat it like it actually make sense. It doesn't.

So, we're just going to ignore Jesus calling the Gentile Syrophoenician woman a "dog" unworthy of bread intended for Jewish "children", and the woman acknowledging that by saying, "Truth Lord! Yet, the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their master's table"? The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus has nothing to do with what happens when we die - it nees interpretation.

Of course, the beggar outside with the "dogs" is representative of the Gentiles. The Jews still to this day refer to us Gentiles as "dogs". That's why they never tip...because why tip lowly "dogs" who were only put here on Earth by Yahweh to serve their Jew "masters"?

Matthew 7:6
Easy-to-Read Version
6 “Don’t give something that is holy to dogs. They will only turn and hurt you. And don’t throw your pearls to pigs. They will only step on them.