http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/rich-man-and-lazarus-parable.html

The Bible Study Site

Meaning of the
Rich Man and Lazarus parable

What does Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus really MEAN? Does it support the teaching that that those who are saved go directly to heaven upon death? Does it teach that sinners (like the rich person) or the 'lost' are punished by getting tossed into the depths of HELL, eternally separated from God, family and friends, and made to suffer FOREVER?
Understanding the REAL meaning behind the rich man and Lazarus parable is critical, as countless churches use it as their primary argument to justify the existence of an ever-burning Hell. The New Testament NOWHERE uses the 'fires of Hell' or the threat of unending pain as a way of spreading the good news of the gospel!

A parable, like the one of the rich man, is a short symbolic (but not literal) story designed to teach some principle or lesson. They are a teaching method that involves a comparison. They use situations, events and circumstances known to those being taught to, like a bridge, to teach them a principle or convey a meaning that it not understood. In Jesus' case, he used them to convey spiritual truths and, in the case of the rich person and Lazarus, as correction. By their very nature they are NOT to be taken literally true in every detail.

Will pets or other animals be in heaven?
Why did Jesus use PARABLES?
What does Proverbs say about being rich?
Jesus' use of parables was not uncommon. The Jewish Rabbis of his day commonly used them as teaching tools. This is in part why he used them to correct the Pharisees (self-righteous religious leaders) who were unjustly criticizing what he taught.

Why did Jesus give it?
In the first thirteen verses of Luke 16 we find Jesus teaching his disciples about being wise stewards and that man cannot serve both God and mammon (money, earthly possessions, etc.). The Pharisees overheard what Jesus said and, knowing it also applied to them, roundly criticized him: "Now the Pharisees who were also covetous (greedy and lovers of money), heard all these things; and they ridiculed Him." (Luke 16:14, NKJV throughout)

Jesus tells the Pharisees that they seek to justify themselves before men and not God. After a few more comments he speaks a parable that is in direct response to their finding fault with what he taught.

The story begins
19. Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, and daily indulged himself in luxury. 20. And there was a certain poor man named Lazarus, who was laid at his porch, full of sores (Luke 16:19 - 20)

Why did Christ refer to this poor beggar as Lazarus? The meaning of his name is 'assistance of God' or 'whom God helps.'

The Pharisees prided themselves on their righteousness through strict obedience to their interpretation of God's law. They also despised others, especially sinners and tax collectors (see Luke 18:9 - 14). The irony here is that those who truly believed they served and represented God would not help someone "whom God helps." They disdained someone whom God accepted.

This beggar was what we today would call a street person who had become terminally ill. He is portrayed as having no one that could or would help him - he was entirely on his own and had nothing. Note that Lazarus was in so desperate a need that he DESIRED to eat (but did NOT get) the food scraps that fell on the floor (Luke 16:21). Because of the depth of his plight, he was willing to eat food trash since the wealthy person of the parable would not help him AT ALL. In stark contrast we have a rich man (symbolic of the Pharisees) whose house Lazarus is placed in front of. He, however, is so callused regarding the human condition that he won't even let the beggar eat his trash!

22. Now it came to pass that the poor man died, and he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died and was buried (verse 22)

In time both the beggar and the wealthy man die. Lazarus is "helped by God" to Abraham while the well-off man is still buried and lies in his grave.

Now note what verse 22 does NOT say! It does NOT state that the beggar went to heaven. It also does not say the rich man, immediately upon death, was tossed into some eternal Hell. The verse says the beggar is carried to "Abraham's bosom." But what does this phrase mean?

One of the definitions of "bosom" at Dictionary.com says the word represents something intimate or close, like a relationship. Likewise Lazarus is carried into a close relationship with Abraham (who represents faith in God and salvation). The beggar is allowed entrance into God's kingdom (but it doesn't state when this occurs)

We now come to the verse that, because of an erroneous translation of one word, has led countless people who study the Bible to believe in a fiery Hell where sinners suffer forever. The word translated in the NKJV, NASB, NRSV and other Bibles as 'Hades' in verse 23 and 'Hell' in the KJV and NIV translations comes from the Greek word hades (Strong's Concordance #G86). This Greek word is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word sheol (#H7585). Both hades and sheol mean the GRAVE, as the following translation shows.

"And in the GRAVE he lifted up his eyes and was in torment, for he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." (Luke 16:23, HBFV, see also Acts 2:27, Revelation 1:18, 20:13)

We also find proof in verse 23 that this parable is not meant to be taken literally in every last detail. Both the rich man and Lazarus are shown to be alive after they died. If we take verse 22 and 23 literally, it would mean the resurrection of the dead has already taken place! The Bible clearly states, however, the first resurrection of the dead is a yet future event that occurs after the Great Tribulation (see Revelation 20:4 - 6).

Why was the rich man tormented in the grave? It is because he saw a lake of fire before him and realized the time of his judgment before God has arrived. WHEN is he brought back to life? In the second resurrection, which occurs during the Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:11 - 15). The purpose of this resurrection is not just to offer all mankind a first REAL chance at salvation. Its purpose is also to punish the incorrigible wicked by having them face their judgment and be thrown into the lake of fire. Is this, then, the HELL where people suffer forever? NO! The punishment of the wicked is to die a second time - for all eternity. The lake of fire totally destroys, for forever, what is thrown in it. Humans thrown in it are consumed and become eternally DEAD (Revelation 20:12, 14 - 15).

Father Abraham! Take pity on me, and send Lazarus to dip his finger in some water and cool off my tongue (Verse 24)

Seeing Abraham, the rich man appeals to him to send Lazarus to cool his tongue with a drop of water. What happens when one is suddenly so horrified with fear? His mouth goes dry. His tongue sticks to his mouth and throat! It is in such desperation that he cries for even a drop of water, which, ironically, because of his hard heart he didn't even give to others.

Here is some more proof why this story should not be taken literally in all details. How could the well-off person know who Abraham was when he had been dead for 1,800+ years? Also, it would be very difficult for the rich man to recognize Lazarus in a glorified body, as he had been an emaciated pile of bones and flesh and full of sores during his physical life. The difference would have been appalling. Additionally, this verse reiterates how the roles of these two men have changed. The rich man was without need of help when the beggar was in dire straits and now he is in a dire situation when the beggar is without need. In effect, Christ is giving a warning to the Pharisees that their state in life could quickly change, therefore they should not be so smug and look down on others.

Remember, my son, that in your lifetime you were given all the good things, while Lazarus got all the bad things. But now he is enjoying himself here, while you are in pain. 26 Besides all that, there is a deep pit lying between us . . . (verses 25 - 26)

Jesus got the immediate attention of the Pharisees by using Abraham as a character in his lesson. Christ is showing that one needs to live his life correctly today, not wait until the next life to make amends. These verses show that it was impossible for Lazarus to do what the rich man wanted because of the circumstances. The gulf shows the striking difference between a righteous spirit being and a pathetic unrighteous human being.

Next, we see the rich man trying to reach out to others. He feels lost himself, so at last, though he did not reach out to others before, he now sees this as his only possible last wish before he eternally dies. To think that he is taking in the whole scene and realizing where he is in time is not rational. In his thinking, a moment ago he had need of nothing. Now he is as good as dead, but believes his brothers are still alive. He wants to save them from this place, if possible (Luke 16:27 - 28).

'They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them' (verse 29)

In essence, what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees (through Abraham) is "you (Pharisees) have Moses and the prophets" and therefore have NO excuse for your approach to life and how you treat other people.

But if someone were to rise from death and go to them, then they would turn from their sins. 31 But Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone were to rise from death' (verses 30 - 31)

Jesus ultimately tells us what is the meaning of the rich man and Lazarus parable. He was telling the Pharisees (who were self-righteous hypocrites) that since they did not truly believe and follow what Moses and the prophets wrote, no amount of miracles and wonders would be able to change their minds and alter how they lived life. It was the hardness of their hearts that kept them from truly repenting and serving God.

Yes. As long as the pleasure is ethical, I agree with you.

No, it's not channeled, Dave. What is the source of your information? Surely you didn't write it yourself. Nor did you read the book, right? You're bearing false witness against God's new revelation to our world and you haven't even read the book! What's the difference between you and the guy who said this: He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?" (John 10:20)



No it doesn't, Dave. And "extraterrestrial spirit beings" are commonly called "angels." Isn't that what they're called in your religion, Dave? That's what they're called in our religion too. But "extraterrestrial spirit beings" sounds much more sinister, doesn't it? Dave? Be honest now.



No it doesn't Dave. Elaborate, maybe, "pseudo," not.



Not exactly Dave. It just uses the word "universe" differently from the common usage.



That's good, Dave. Finally, something right.



The Urantia Book is not based on "the Bible stories." The reason they are similar is the same reason two versions of a train wreck story are necessarily similar if not the same. The train wreck happened.

Nor does it matter if it "departs from most Christian theology." Some Christian theology is wrong, Dave. God is not a Christian, Dave, and Jesus was not The First Christian. And Jesus did not come to "solidify his superior status." Where did you get that from, Dave? Jesus came here primarily to "bear witness unto the truth" Dave, just like the bible says. (John 18:37) The Urantia Book says exactly the same thing, Dave.



What does that even mean, Dave? "A new age book" What does that mean, Dave? Apparently it's supposed to be derogatory, right? There was some need to say something derogatory at that point and someone said, "Hey, I know, let's say it's "a new age book," and call their angels, "extraterrestrial spirit beings." Yah, that'll fix 'em.

And you can prove what are God's commandments, HOW?



I never said we all got the same rewards. I said we would ALL (probably) make it to the "many mansions" that Jesus spoke of (John 14:2). "I go to prepare a place for you."



Where does Jesus say that? You "have to believe" what? What YOU believe?



No, I don't "make it up as I go," and you'd better be careful or you're probably destined to be banned from this forum, and if I get banned along with you, then so be it. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of you. And furthermore, this is the "General Religion Chat" forum, it's not the Christian/Bible forum and the bible is not necessarily the lingua franca here. WE DO NOT ALL HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU AND YOUR BELIEFS. And not believing as you believe does not give you the right to call other people's religions and beliefs, "CRAP," and deem them to be "LIARS" because they don't agree with YOU. Your bible beliefs ARE NOT supreme here, to the best of my knowledge. You should stop acting like you know it all and that you're the only one who does. Your over-bearing attitude is beyond boorish.

Good post, imo, bigd.

I too am of the opinion, as are most Urantia Book believers I think, that we are pretty much ALL going to make it at least to the "many Mansions" that Jesus spoke of (John 14:2).

Here's some comments from The Urantia Book about Zoroaster:

92:5.9 4. The sixth century before Christ. Many men arose to proclaim truth in this, one of the greatest centuries of religious awakening ever witnessed on Urantia. Among these should be recorded Gautama, Confucius, Lao-tse, Zoroaster, and the Jainist teachers. The teachings of Gautama have become widespread in Asia, and he is revered as the Buddha by millions. Confucius was to Chinese morality what Plato was to Greek philosophy, and while there were religious repercussions to the teachings of both, strictly speaking, neither was a religious teacher; Lao-tse envisioned more of God in Tao than did Confucius in humanity or Plato in idealism. Zoroaster, while much affected by the prevalent concept of dual spiritism, the good and the bad, at the same time definitely exalted the idea of one eternal Deity and of the ultimate victory of light over darkness.

95:6.1 From Palestine some of the Melchizedek missionaries passed on through Mesopotamia and to the great Iranian plateau. For more than five hundred years the Salem teachers made headway in Iran, and the whole nation was swinging to the Melchizedek religion when a change of rulers precipitated a bitter persecution which practically ended the monotheistic teachings of the Salem cult. The doctrine of the Abrahamic covenant was virtually extinct in Persia when, in that great century of moral renaissance, the sixth before Christ, Zoroaster appeared to revive the smouldering embers of the Salem gospel.

95:6.4 Zoroaster did not teach the worship of fire but sought to utilize the flame as a symbol of the pure and wise Spirit of universal and supreme dominance. (All too true, his later followers did both reverence and worship this symbolic fire.) Finally, upon the conversion of an Iranian prince, this new religion was spread by the sword. And Zoroaster heroically died in battle for that which he believed was the “truth of the Lord of light.”

95:7.3 Here and there throughout Arabia were families and clans that held on to the hazy idea of the one God. Such groups treasured the traditions of Melchizedek, Abraham, Moses, and Zoroaster. There were numerous centers that might have responded to the Jesusonian gospel, but the Christian missionaries of the desert lands were an austere and unyielding group in contrast with the compromisers and innovators who functioned as missionaries in the Mediterranean countries. Had the followers of Jesus taken more seriously his injunction to “go into all the world and preach the gospel,” and had they been more gracious in that preaching, less stringent in collateral social requirements of their own devising, then many lands would gladly have received the simple gospel of the carpenter’s son, Arabia among them.

131:5.1 Zoroaster was himself directly in contact with the descendants of the earlier Melchizedek missionaries, and their doctrine of the one God became a central teaching in the religion which he founded in Persia. Aside from Judaism, no religion of that day contained more of these Salem teachings.

Good post, good points, imo.

Yes, I do.

It is kinda funny. But true. "Truth is stranger than fiction." -Mark Twain

Indeed. Cain went to "the land of Nod." The Nodites (Nephilim) lived there. They were the "giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." (Genesis 6:4)

76:2.1 Less than two years after Cain’s birth, Abel was born, the first child of Adam and Eve to be born in the second garden. When Abel grew up to the age of twelve years, he elected to be a herder; Cain had chosen to follow agriculture.

76:2.2 Now, in those days it was customary to make offerings to the priesthood of the things at hand. Herders would bring of their flocks, farmers of the fruits of the fields; and in accordance with this custom, Cain and Abel likewise made periodic offerings to the priests. The two boys had many times argued about the relative merits of their vocations, and Abel was not slow to note that preference was shown for his animal sacrifices. In vain did Cain appeal to the traditions of the first Eden, to the former preference for the fruits of the fields. But this Abel would not allow, and he taunted his older brother in his discomfiture.

76:2.3 In the days of the first Eden Adam had indeed sought to discourage the offering of animal sacrifice so that Cain had a justifiable precedent for his contentions. It was, however, difficult to organize the religious life of the second Eden. Adam was burdened with a thousand and one details associated with the work of building, defense, and agriculture. Being much depressed spiritually, he intrusted the organization of worship and education to those of Nodite extraction who had served in these capacities in the first garden; and in even so short a time the officiating Nodite priests were reverting to the standards and rulings of pre-Adamic times.

76:2.4 The two boys never got along well, and this matter of sacrifices further contributed to the growing hatred between them. Abel knew he was the son of both Adam and Eve and never failed to impress upon Cain that Adam was not his father. Cain was not pure violet as his father was of the Nodite race later admixed with the blue and the red man and with the aboriginal Andonic stock. And all of this, with Cain’s natural bellicose inheritance, caused him to nourish an ever-increasing hatred for his younger brother.

76:2.5 The boys were respectively eighteen and twenty years of age when the tension between them was finally resolved, one day, when Abel’s taunts so infuriated his bellicose brother that Cain turned upon him in wrath and slew him. -The Urantia Book

But your interpretation is the correct one, right?

This is well said. Follow the goodness in your heart, and if you do, in my opinion, you will be allowing the Spirit of Truth that Jesus spoke of, to guide you into the truth.

"...The Spirit of truth, ...will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13)

You can't know what Jesus really said (what He refuted or did not refute, what He promoted or did not promote) from the meager biblical records whose authors are largely unknown, and of course, there are no originals of any of those documents, just handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies, and they've been burned in fires and wars and lost to moths and floods and mold and mildew and altered by scribes by mistake and by scribes with agendas. And most of the New Testament is about Paul who wasn't even one of Jesus' personally chosen and trained apostles. The only way you can ever know what Jesus really said is to read the angelic transcripts of Jesus' life and teachings as they are contained in The Urantia Book. And they ARE contained in The Urantia Book. The complete record of Jesus' life and teachings from God's universe government. It's all in The Urantia Book, but you have to read it to believe it. No one can do that for you. And thank you again for constantly bringing it up.

and look at the title of the urantia. it states "WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN..."

Where does it say that? You are either mistaken or very confused. Many Urantia Books have passed through my hands over the years and NONE of them have ever said that. I demand to know where it says what you say it says. Are you just making stuff up? That's dishonest and not very Christian. And what sort of Christian are you, anyway? You don't even believe in the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Don't try to deny it.

But Jesus says that the Spirit of Truth, not the scriptures, will give you the answers you seek:

"...The Spirit of truth, ...will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13)

And interestingly enough, neither the Apostles Creed nor the Nicene Creed, two fundamental statements of Christian belief, mention the bible at all.

LOL. Yah, I donno either. Or what an unmolested fact is.

[quote[Two yes the pope handles all that . For perspective , by the time your petition for annulment gets to his desk you'd be 6 feet under. That's how long your wait is , to be heard by the pope , unless you're a Trump, Gates , Carnegie etc .


I had two friends in Montana who got an annulment. Didn't seem to take the too long and I never got the impression from them that the Pope was involved in it.

I copied this off the web: "There are about 11 million Catholics in the United States whose marriages end in divorce, yet only about 25,000 Catholic annulments are granted in this country each year."

So, are you saying that the Pope personally handles 25,000 US annulments each year? And what about annulments in the rest of the world? The Pope does all those too? That seems unbelievable. No offense.

Don't you think it's more likely that Moses thought them up, then went up to a quarry high on the mountain in the fog with some expert rock chiselers and then when they returned down the mountain with the tablets, Moses told the people that God did it? If God did it, why didn't He use Titanium, something that would last? And then the Hebrews lost the tablets, true? If not, where are the originals? Did the angels take them back, the way they allegedly took back Joseph Smith's golden tablets? Why does God seem to be locked into using only the latest material that man can manipulate, like granite in Moses' case, and gold in Smith's case, why can't God use better material if He's going to produce such things Himself? God could have give Moses the tablets on stainless steel, but they didn't have that in those days.