The Rich Man and Lazarus

An Analysis of: The Rich Man and Lazarus Parable

Many people, because of the false doctrines of eternal conscious torment and annihilationism, believe that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is proof that in the afterlife people will burn in a literal fire.

But is this true? Does this parable prove a literal burning, torturous fire for the damned?

The first thing we must realize is that the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is exactly that… a parable. It is not to be interpreted literally, however, it does convey metaphorical truth.

But what is a parable, exactly, according to scripture?

According to Matthew 13:10–16, Jesus explicitly states that He speaks in parables to conceal truth from those who are not spiritually receptive, while revealing it to those who are.

That means parables are not meant to be taken at face value. They are mysteries, metaphors, or symbolic stories that require spiritual discernment to understand.

So, when people interpret the Rich Man and Lazarus story (Luke 16:19–31) as a literal description of the afterlife, they are violating the very purpose of a parable.

Parables are:

Mysteries (hidden truths)
Figurative, not documentary
Designed to reveal spiritual realities, not physical geography

If a parable is meant to hide something from the natural mind, then reading it as a literal, chronological account of the afterlife completely misses the point. That is not just bad hermeneutics, it is ignoring Jesus’s stated purpose for using parables in the first place.

The Rich Man and Lazarus section of scripture is definitely a parable for many reasons. To open this discussion, let’s look at how it begins.

Jesus often begins His parables with “There was a certain man…” and the Rich Man and Lazarus is no exception.

This phrasing is not random. It is a storytelling device. Just like modern fairy tales begin with “Once upon a time,” Jesus begins many of His parables with “There was a certain man…”

Let’s look at the pattern:

Matthew 21:33

“Hear another parable: There was a certain householder…”

Clearly a parable. No one reads this as literal history.

Luke 7:41

“There was a certain creditor which had two debtors…”

Another parable, symbolic of forgiveness and love.

Luke 16:1

“There was a certain rich man…”

This introduces the parable of the unjust steward, which nobody takes literally.

Luke 16:19

“There was a certain rich man…”

Suddenly, people flip and treat it as literal theology?

That is selective reading. Same formula, same storyteller, same chapter, yet people cherry-pick one to be literal only because it supports a terrifying doctrine.

By narrative structure alone, Luke 16:19 follows the same parabolic pattern. It even comes right after the parable of the unjust steward, introduced the exact same way.

So the real question is:

If “there was a certain man” signals a parable everywhere else, what makes this one different?

Answer: Nothing! Except the reader’s bias.

The fact that the parable begins with “there was a certain man” should be clue enough that it is a parable. And it is, for anyone who is not already committed to defending eternal torment and insisting on interpreting flame and fire as an eternal torture fire for eternity.

But if you still insist on interpreting parables, like the Rich Man and Lazarus, in order to convince people that in the afterlife they will burn in a literal torturous fire… then fine, let’s look at a few other parables.

And just make me one promise. Promise me, with all intellectual honesty, that you’ll stay consistent with your interpretation.

1. The Parable of the Eye and Hand (Matthew 5:29–30)

“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out… if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off…”

Literal interpretation?
Time to get out the knives. Every man who has ever lusted would be blind and maimed. No hospital, just pluck and chop.

If we are being consistent, shouldn’t the church be filled with one-eyed, one-handed saints?

The reality:
This is hyperbolic parable language about the severity of sin, not divine instructions for DIY amputation. But if Rich Man and Lazarus is literal, why isn’t this?

2. The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant (Matthew 18:34–35)

“His master handed him over to the torturers until he paid back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive…”

Literal interpretation?
So God has a literal torture chamber where He sends you until you pay off spiritual debt? This sounds like divine loan sharking.

But if we apply the same “literal hellfire” logic used in Luke 16, you have to believe God uses torture rooms for believers who do not forgive.

The reality:
This is a metaphor for internal torment and the spiritual consequence of unforgiveness, not a literal dungeon.

3. The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matthew 13:31–32)

“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed… which becomes a tree, and birds come and perch in its branches.”

Literal interpretation?
So… God’s kingdom is… a literal bush? And birds are… what? Angels? Demons? Chickens?

If we are being consistent, let’s make sure we all understand the afterlife in terms of botanical metaphors too.

The reality:
This is symbolic of kingdom growth, not a horticulture lesson.

4. The Parable of the Vine and the Branches (John 15:5–6)

“I am the vine, you are the branches… If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.”

Literal interpretation?
So Jesus is… literally a plant? Are we all connected to some celestial root system? And if you fall into sin, you are going to be kindling in God’s backyard burn pile?

Next time someone backslides, are we supposed to prune them and throw them into a literal fire pit?

The reality:
This is a spiritual metaphor about abiding in Christ, not botany, not cremation, and not arboreal judgment. The fire is symbolic of purging, refining, or discipline, not eternal barbecue.

So let’s recap with a dose of logic:

Jesus is a vine
The Kingdom is a bush
And you are an amputated, half-blind bundle of sticks

…if you take all parables literally.

But you do not. Nobody does, until they get to the Rich Man and Lazarus, and suddenly the rules of parables go out the window!

Mysteries are not meant to be manuals. You cannot say “this part is literal” in a genre designed to conceal deeper truth. That is not interpretation, it is cherry-picking to prop up a doctrine.

So the real question is:

Why is that one parable treated like courtroom evidence while the others are rightly recognized as metaphors?

Because fear sells!

But truth sets free!

Conclusion:
If you demand a literal hellfire theology from the Rich Man and Lazarus parable, you have to start gouging eyes, building bird trees, and accepting a torturing Father. Otherwise, admit it: Jesus was speaking in parables, and parables are never meant to be taken literally.

You cannot have hidden mysteries and plain descriptions in the same breath. To interpret one parable literally while treating the rest as metaphor is not just inconsistent, it is theological malpractice.

And the answer is of course not. That is because parables are not meant to be taken literally. If they were, we all would be missing our literal eyes. No, instead they are meant to speak spiritual truths about spiritual circumstances.

Literal Litmus Test

Okay great. Now at this point I hope you truly understand what a parable is and how insane it is to interpret one literally. But to really drive this point home let’s look again at the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus and let’s do a literal interpretation litmus test for this parable to see if the eternal conscious torment crowd can stay consistent, without revealing themselves to be inconsistent, fear mongering, cherry pickers.

1. Is being rich a sin?

“Now there was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.” (Luke 16:19)

If this story is literal, then being wealthy gets you sent to hell.

But Abraham was rich, and he’s in the “good place” in the story!

So… riches are bad, unless you’re rich like Abraham?

Conclusion: The point isn’t wealth = hell. It’s about heart posture, not bank accounts.

2. Is Abraham’s bosom actually heaven on his chest?

“The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom.” (Luke 16:22)

So what, heaven is now inside Abraham’s shirt? You literally get cuddled on his chest for eternity?

If you take it literally, the afterlife becomes a giant spiritual snuggle session with a patriarch’s torso. That’s weird theology.

Conclusion: “Abraham’s bosom” is a Jewish metaphor for being in covenant favor, not God’s GPS coordinates.

3. Can a drop of water do anything for somebody in flames?

“And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’” (Luke 16:24)

If the guy’s engulfed in literal flame, what’s a drop of water on the tongue going to do, caramelize it?

This request only makes symbolic sense, not physical sense. It suggests spiritual thirst, torment of conscience, not BBQ pain.

4. Why is “flame” singular?

“…for I am in anguish in this flame.” (Luke 16:24)

It says “this flame,” not flames. Singular. Why?

Because Jesus is painting a symbolic picture.

One flame, one torment, it’s personal. It’s not an inferno; it’s conviction.

A soul burning with regret, not with fireworks.

5. Why does the rich man have five brothers?

“For I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.” (Luke 16:28)

Weird detail, unless… Jesus is referencing something deeper.

Many scholars believe this hints at the five brothers of the high priestly family of Caiaphas, or it could mean the five groups of priestly order for the Jews, making this parable a rebuke of corrupt religious leaders, not a documentary on hell.

Conclusion: The number isn’t random. It’s coded.

6. Can people in hell talk to people in heaven?

“And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.’” (Luke 16:24-25)

So there’s cross-realm voice chat now? No cosmic walls between realms?

If this were literal, we’d all be haunted by flame victims shouting up to saints.

There’s zero other scriptural support for conversation across the great divide.

Conclusion: The dialogue is dramatic metaphor, not eschatological mechanics.

7. Then why is the beggar named Lazarus?

“There was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores.” (Luke 16:20)

No other parable uses names. So why now?

Because Jesus is flipping expectations.

The name Lazarus means “God has helped.”

The guy nobody valued is the one whom God has named, while the rich man is anonymous.

Conclusion: It’s a prophetic dig at the Pharisees, not a literal heaven/hell map.

Summary:

If you take it literally…
Heaven is Abraham’s chest.
You can be saved by poverty.
A single drop of water is eternal relief.
Hell has chat windows.
And the main torment is… one singular flame?

Or it’s exactly what Jesus said parables are: a metaphor, a mystery, a spiritual mirror.

Literal reading fails every test. The spiritual and metaphorical reading passes every single time.

Spoiler Alert

Now that we have gotten past that, what if I told you that the parable of Rich Man and Lazarus was not about Hades or hell at all.

What if I told you it was actually about the Father’s rejection of the Jews, that is, their hardening in the next age, and the grafting in of the Gentiles in the next age.

What if I told you it was not about the afterlife at all, yet about the afterlife of the nation in the next age?

What do I mean? Well let me amplify the entire parable and lay this out point by point for you so you can understand that this is not about hellfire or Hades in the afterlife, but about the Hades condition of Israel as a nation in the next age.

And do not worry, we will get to the “fire on his tongue” part very soon.

But before we do, let’s just go ahead and finish interpreting the rest of this parable point by point. Let’s start with the priestly garments, so you can see what this truly is about, because the details in the parable are not random.

The Rich Man

When Jesus says the rich man was “clothed in purple and fine linen,” He’s not just painting a picture of wealth, He’s invoking priestly imagery tied directly to Israel’s religious elite, especially the high priesthood.

Let’s break it down:

1. Purple and Fine Linen = High Priestly Garments
In Exodus 28:5–6, God commands that the garments for the high priest (Aaron) be made of:

“gold, blue, purple, and scarlet thread, and fine linen…”

“Purple and fine linen” weren’t just symbols of wealth, they were the literal fabric of the high priest’s robe.

So when Jesus says the rich man wore these, the Jewish audience would immediately catch the subtle jab at the temple priesthood, not just generic rich people.

2. The Rich Man Represents the Corrupt Religious Elite
This ties directly into the context of Luke 16:

Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees, who were “lovers of money” (Luke 16:14).

The parable right before this one is about a corrupt steward who is mismanaging wealth, again directed at the religious leaders.

In Luke 16:31, the parable ends with the rich man begging that someone go to his five brothers. Many believe this hints at the five brothers of Caiaphas, the high priest at that time (per Josephus, Antiquities, 2.1.4), or even possibly the five sects of priestly leadership (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Herodians).

This makes the rich man a symbol of the ruling priestly class who were clothed in priestly garments, obsessed with wealth and status, and ignored the “Lazaruses,” the poor and broken, and even their call to the Gentiles.

“Lazarus” at the Gate = The Gentiles and the Suffering Nations
The name Lazarus means “God has helped.” In the parable, Lazarus sits outside the gate (outside the covenant), sick, suffering, and neglected, a vivid picture of the Gentile nations and all those who were spiritually and physically afflicted. Israel was chosen to be a light to these nations, to share God’s blessing and bring healing to the world, as foretold in the scriptures.

As Isaiah prophesied,

“I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth” (Isaiah 49:6).

And again,

“…for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations” (Isaiah 56:7).

Yet, instead of welcoming and ministering to the “Lazarus” at their gate, Israel’s leaders often ignored the call, leaving the nations outside, hungry and hurting.

The suffering of Lazarus stands as a rebuke to the neglect of Israel’s mission, and a reminder that God’s heart has always been to bring healing to all peoples:

“The leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations” (Revelation 22:2).

But this turning away was not the end of God’s plan. Scripture reveals that Israel’s hardening was permitted for a time so that salvation could be extended to the Gentiles:

“I ask then, did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious” (Romans 11:11).

And again,

“I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25).

After death (symbolic of the next age and the death of the Old Covenant, which was soon to become obsolete), the roles are reversed. Those who were outside (the Gentiles) are brought in, and those who failed their calling find themselves on the outside in the next age, longing for the blessing they withheld from others.

Ephesians 2:12 describes it this way:

“You were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”

That is the pre-salvation condition:

Without God (Greek: atheos)
Without hope
Without help

That is why his name literally means “God has helped” (from Hebrew Elʿāzār / Eleazar, El = God, ʿāzār = help).

Because in the next age those of the covenant will be those who “God has helped.” That is, those without the promise, those without the covenant, and those without the blessings of the covenant, the Gentiles.

Lazarus had nothing, no help from those with the Spirit, no privilege like those with the covenant, but his name proclaims he had God’s help in the next age.

That’s the reversal Jesus always taught:

“The last shall be first.”
“Blessed are the poor in spirit.”

And it gets deeper: Lazarus is outside the gate. Just like Gentiles were “outside the covenant” in Ephesians 2.

But later in Ephesians 2:13, Paul says:

“But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.”

That is Lazarus in prophetic form, the outsider who is brought near, while the insider is cast out.

In short:

The rich man = corrupt priesthood
His garments = high priest’s robes
His indifference = the leaders’ rejection of the Gentiles who were poor in spirit and life
His five brothers = the priestly clan
Lazarus = the rejected nations of the Gentiles

This isn’t a map of hell, it is a judgment on the religious elite. Jesus, once again, is using a parable to flip the tables, not just in the temple, but in the minds of His listeners.

The Crumbs

But let’s drive this point home even further, and obliterate any shadow of torturous hell chamber interpretations, by analyzing the imagery of crumbs and dogs. This part is not just a throwaway detail, it’s a direct callback to a powerful moment in Jesus’ ministry that reveals who truly receives God’s mercy in the age to come, the afterlife symbolism of this parable.

1. Lazarus eats from the crumbs
In Luke 16:21, we read:

“…desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, the dogs came and licked his sores.”

Lazarus is:

Longing for crumbs
Surrounded by dogs
Ignored by the rich man

This seems degrading, but now let’s connect it with the Syrophoenician woman story to add clarity and context and expand this interpretation of the crumbs.

2. The Syrophoenician Woman and the Crumbs
In Matthew 15:21–28, a Gentile woman begs Jesus to heal her daughter. Jesus says:

“It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”

She replies:

“Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”

And Jesus says:

“O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.”

3. Now see the prophetic parallel:

Syrophoenician Woman	Lazarus
Called a dog	Surrounded by dogs
Asks for crumbs	Longs for crumbs
A Gentile outsider	An outcast at the gate
Receives help from God	Name literally means “God helps”
Faith praised by Jesus	Comforted in Abraham’s bosom

Jesus is reversing the religious expectations:

Those who are content with the crumbs of mercy
Those who humbly wait at the door
Those who are called dogs by the elite

Those are the ones whom God will help in the age to come, that is, the parable’s symbolic and metaphorical afterlife.

4. The Rich Man?

He has the whole table
He refuses to share the crumbs
He acts like the one with the inheritance, but ends up on the outside
He becomes the new “dog,” begging Lazarus for help in the ages to come until the fullness of Gentiles come in

Romans 11:25 states,

“I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.”

Final Insight:
The crumbs and dogs imagery is Jesus at His most genius. He’s tying together two parables and one miracle story to expose the spiritual pride of the religious elite and exalt the humility of the outcast.

Lazarus is not just a random beggar. He is the living echo of every rejected Gentile, every outsider, who dares to believe that even a crumb from God is enough to change everything.

So is this parable about a literal hell? Not at all.

Is it about a prophetic rebuke of the corrupt priesthood? Absolutely!

Honestly this parable is so rich and intentional, I feel like I could write an entire book on it. But I am trying to keep it simple… so let’s move on.

Abraham’s Bosom

So what about Abraham’s bosom? Doesn’t that represent Heaven? Because the eternal conscious torment crowd continuously make that location the Heaven after Earth, and the location of the rich man hell, in the afterlife.

That’s a good question, and even that answer alone would require its own separate teaching, but let’s go ahead and touch on it.

“Abraham’s Bosom” = Symbol of Love, Intimacy, and Covenant Favor

The phrase “Abraham’s bosom” appears only in Luke 16:22, and you are right to connect it to the image of John leaning into Jesus’ bosom at the Last Supper (John 13:23).

In Jewish culture, to be “in someone’s bosom” was:

A position of closeness and affection
A symbol of relational security and favor
A sign of being welcomed and beloved

So Lazarus being “in Abraham’s bosom” symbolizes:

Being accepted as Abraham’s child
Being embraced by the covenant
Being under the blessing and mercy of God

This is not about geography after death — it is about status in the covenant.

This is why scripture says…

Galatians 3:14 – The Blessing of Abraham Comes to the Gentiles

“That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ…”

Paul is saying:

The true children of Abraham are not based on bloodline, but faith.
The blessing of Abraham = righteousness by faith, access to the Spirit, and covenant inclusion.
The Gentiles (the outcasts, like Lazarus) are now being grafted in.

So when Lazarus is brought to “Abraham’s bosom,” it is a prophetic picture of what Paul will later teach:

The poor, the Gentiles, the excluded, are now welcomed into the promise — through Christ.

And what about death?

I have continuously pointed out that it represents the afterlife of the covenant, but let’s look at that a little closer.

“Death” in the Parable = Not Just Physical Death, but Covenant Shift and Death to the Old Covenant

This is a key interpretive move.

If the parable is allegorical, which it is as we have proven clearly and exhaustively above, then the death of Lazarus and the rich man is not just about individual death, it is about:

The death of the old order
The collapse of temple-based privilege
The rising of a new kingdom

Paul uses similar covenantal language:

“You died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.” (Colossians 3:3)
“I have been crucified with Christ…” (Galatians 2:20).

So “death” in parabolic form often represents:

Judgment on a system
End of a season
Transition from one age to another

So putting it all together:

Abraham’s bosom = covenant embrace, by grace, through faith
Lazarus = outcasts (especially Gentiles) now receiving the blessing of Abraham
The rich man = Israel’s elite, who rejected the call of mercy and are now outside the gate
Death = symbolic of the end of the old covenant age, not just the physical demise of an individual who was rich

Bonus Parallel:
John 1:18 says Jesus is “in the bosom of the Father,” the exact same imagery as Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom.

So who truly has God’s favor?
Not the one with wealth, power, or status, but the one who is leaning, receiving grace by faith, placing them in Christ, which places them in the bosom of the Father.

Final Thought of this section:
The parable isn’t about who goes where when they die. It is about who truly belongs in the Father’s embrace.

And by tying it to Abraham’s bosom, Jesus is declaring:
“This promise is no longer about keeping the law, being circumcised in the flesh, or even a priestly bloodline. It’s about faith. And Jesus is warning Israel that the beggars, the Gentiles outside the gate, are about to take your place at the table through faith in me.” Amen.

This interpretation is consistent with all of scripture, and the rogue false interpretation of eternal conscious torment fails every test.

Let’s move on…

Father Abraham

Now let’s highlight another clue that points to the fact that the rich man represents the nation of Israel, who is being hardened and will be cut off in the ages to come. Not the absurd interpretation that the rich man is an individual man who had riches and will be eternally burned in a torture chamber simply because he was rich and not generous.

The clue is when the rich man in Luke 16 addresses Abraham as “Father Abraham.” He is not just being respectful, he is claiming covenant identity.

He is saying: “I belong to you. I’m a son of Abraham.”

But just like in John 8:39, that claim is challenged by Jesus Himself. Let’s unpack the connection:

Luke 16:24

“Father Abraham, have mercy on me…”

This shows the rich man:

Sees himself as a child of Abraham
Believes he still has some right to covenant privilege
Is still trying to pull rank, even in judgment, based on privileged lineage

But just like the Pharisees in John 8, he misunderstands what it means to be a true son of Abraham.

John 8:39–40

“They answered and said to Him, ‘Abraham is our father.’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were Abraham’s children, you would do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill Me… this Abraham did not do.’”

Jesus is making it clear:

Physical descent is not enough
True children of Abraham walk in faith, humility, and mercy, not pride in their works or their fleshly circumcision

By opposing Jesus, they prove they are not true sons, even if they claim the name.

Here’s a parallel breakdown:

Rich Man (Luke 16)	Pharisees (John 8)
Calls Abraham “Father”	Claim Abraham as father
Assumes covenant privilege	Assume covenant privilege
Shows no mercy to Lazarus	Plot to kill the innocent Christ
Lives in luxury	Exalt themselves in religion
Ends up judged	Jesus warns: “You are not of Abraham.”

Why This Clue Matters:
Jesus is showing in both Luke 16 and John 8 that true sonship is not genetic.
It’s covenantal. It’s spiritual. It’s by faith.

The rich man claiming “Father Abraham” is like many of the religious elite in Jesus’ day:

Proud of their ancestry
Blind to their spiritual poverty
Condemned for rejecting the very ones God sent, whether Lazarus or Christ Himself

Final Connection:
So when the rich man says “Father Abraham,” it becomes a tragic irony:
He thinks he is an insider, but in reality, he has been cut off from the very promise he presumed to inherit.

As Paul later writes:

“For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.” (Romans 9:6)

So yes, the rich man’s use of “Father Abraham” is yet another clue that he represents unrepentant Israel, those who claim the covenant but reject its heart and even its call to serve and bless others by administering the grace given through faith.

This parable is amazing. It literally parallels and confirms all of Paul’s teaching on Israel. Amazing. Let’s move on, because it not only confirms Paul’s teaching but also clearly now confirms the other teachings of Jesus. Let me show you…

The Ages To Come

Let’s drive this point home by looking at what Jesus said in Matthew 8:11–12, because it directly affirms everything we have been unpacking about the Rich Man and Lazarus, covenant identity, and reversal of status in the kingdom in the age(s) to come.

Here’s the passage…

Matthew 8:11–12 (Jesus speaking):

“I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Breakdown & Connection:

1. “Many will come from east and west…”
Gentiles and outsiders (like Lazarus), those previously excluded, will be welcomed into the intimate fellowship of the covenant family.
They are not born into it, they enter by faith.

2. “…and will sit at the feast with Abraham…”
This mirrors Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, covenant closeness, divine favor, restored family table.
It also speaks of the marriage supper of the Lamb, the future feast of union with Christ.

3. “But the sons of the kingdom…”
Those who thought they had an automatic place (like the rich man in Luke 16).
Born of Abraham’s line, yes, but without the heart of Abraham.
Religious, proud, unmerciful, the very ones Jesus rebuked in John 8 and Matthew 23.

4. “…will be cast out into outer darkness…”
Just like the rich man found himself outside the gate, far from the light and comfort of God.
The outer darkness is not Hell, but exclusion from the joy and light of the kingdom, in the following ages before His return. It is a Hades experience of the soul, a darkness without the covenant, without the presence of God, in the ages to come.

5. “…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
The language of regret, anguish, and loss, a suffering of life without the Spirit.
Echoed multiple times in Jesus’ parables, not as eternal torture, but as the agony of missing the kingdom due to pride and unbelief.

Why This Matters in Luke 16
The rich man is one of the “sons of the kingdom”
He thinks his bloodline guarantees favor
He ends up outside, begging

Lazarus, the outsider, the Gentile-type
Ends up reclining in Abraham’s bosom, the very feast Jesus describes.

Final Synthesis:
Matthew 8:11–12 is the theological key to Luke 16.
It confirms the symbolism of the parable.
It shows the reversal Jesus constantly preached: “the first will be last…”
And it reinforces the message of inclusion by faith, not birthright, power, or religious status.

The gate is open,
but only the humble enter.

The rich man had the right name, “Father Abraham,”
but not the right heart.

So he was cast out,
while the beggar found a seat at the table.

The Torment

Okay so let’s get into the torment part, that is the nitty gritty. The eternal conscious torment crowd claims that torment means it is Hell. That the rich man, who they insist is just an individual like all of us, not a nation and not symbolic for anything but a rich man, is in torment by a flame, singular not flames. And that this flame and this torment represent an eternal torturous chamber of never-ending torture by literal fire, of people burning over and over again without ceasing.

Is this true? And what does this word torment even mean? Let’s analyze this next and dig into the fearful connotations of this parable, specifically the word “torment” and how it is used in Scripture.

The word “torment” is often misunderstood, especially in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, where people equate it with literal fiery torture. But the Greek words translated as “torment” have broader meanings, including anguish, sorrow, mental distress, and even grief, depending on context.

Let’s break it down:
The Greek word used is βασάνος (basanos) and its verbal form βασανίζω (basanizō).

Primary meaning: originally referred to testing metals (a touchstone), a means of examination or proving
Later meaning: severe distress, anguish, torture, or testing under pressure
But it doesn’t always refer to literal pain, it can describe emotional anguish, sorrow, or mental agony

For example in Luke 2:48:

“Son, why have You treated us this way? Behold, Your father and I have sought You sorrowing.”

Greek: ὀδυνώμενοι (odynōmenoi): same root as “tormented” in Luke 16:24.

This is Mary and Joseph, not in flames, but in anguish, grief, and mental distress. They were not tortured, they were emotionally overwhelmed, fearing for their child.

So when Jesus says in the parable,

“…for I am tormented (odynōmai) in this flame.”

This is not βασανίζω (basanizō) but ὀδυνάω (odynaō), which means:

To cause pain or grief
To distress severely
Often used for emotional sorrow and mental suffering

This is the same word used for Mary and Joseph’s sorrow, not physical pain, but anguish of soul.

Biblical Use of “Torment” or “Anguish” is Often Internal

Passage	Word	Context	Type of Suffering
Luke 2:48	odynaō	Mary’s distress over missing Jesus	Emotional
Acts 20:38	odynaō	Elders grieving over Paul’s farewell	Emotional
Revelation 14:10	basanizō	Symbolic torment “in presence of the Lamb”	Judgment image, not literal
Luke 16:24	odynaō	Rich man’s anguish	Regret, sorrow, guilt

So What Was the Rich Man Really Experiencing?
Not physical fire, but the flame of conscience.
Not literal hellfire torture, but anguish, regret, and moral shame.
A realization of what he lost, how he ignored Lazarus, and what he is now excluded from.
This fits the theme of reversal and judgment of the heart, not a blueprint of the afterlife.

Final Insight:
The “torment” the rich man felt is the same kind of sorrow Jesus’ parents felt when they could not find Him. That alone tells you:

This is not a chamber of fire.
It is a parable of sorrow, a picture of soul-level anguish over missed mercy, and a prophetic warning about trusting in privilege over compassion.

The flame is not on his skin. It is in his heart.

The flame of suffering is the same flame that Joseph and Mary felt, the anguish over losing Jesus Himself. It is the anguish of a life without Jesus in this world.

The Great Gulf

Next let’s talk about the “great gulf,” considering the eternal conscious torment false doctrine attempts to make this geography between heaven and hell in the afterlife.

The “great gulf fixed” in Luke 16:26 actually ties into our entire interpretation and powerfully and symbolically also represents spiritual blindness, particularly the hardening and veil over Israel that Paul speaks about in Romans 11 and 2 Corinthians 3.

Let’s break this down and tie it directly to the text:

Luke 16:26 “A great gulf fixed”

“And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.”

Traditionally, the false doctrine of eternal conscious torment advocates, who are modern day mental tormentors, interpret this as a spatial divide between heaven and hell.

But in parable form, and in the context of covenantal reversal, the “gulf” more likely symbolizes a spiritual barrier.

This aligns perfectly with Paul’s teachings about Israel’s blindness, let me show you.

Romans 11:25 A partial hardening (blindness) of Israel

“For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you will not be conceited: A partial hardening (blindness) has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.”

What this shows:

Israel (the rich man in the parable) is in a spiritually blind state
This “gulf” keeps them from crossing into the truth of the new covenant
Just like the rich man can see Lazarus from afar, but can’t reach him, Israel can see the fruits of the promise but can’t grasp it (for now)

2 Corinthians 3:14–15 says, “The veil remains over their eyes.”

“But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same ‘veil’ remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a ‘veil’ lies on their heart.”

What this shows:

The veil is the gulf, it is what keeps the “sons of the kingdom” (Matthew 8:12) from recognizing the Messiah
The veil is internal, not physical
The only way to cross the divide is through Christ, and the rich man still doesn’t call on Him

Connecting the Dots in the Parable:

“A great gulf fixed”	Spiritual blindness, veil over Israel’s heart
Can’t cross over	Hardened in pride and self-righteousness
Rich man pleads to Abraham, not God	Still relying on ancestry, not faith in Christ
Lazarus comforted	Outsiders now receive the covenant promise

So yes, the “great gulf fixed” is best understood, in symbolic context, as the spiritual blindness of Israel that:

Prevents them from entering the kingdom
Keeps them from recognizing Christ
And will remain until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in (Romans 11:25)

But the good news?
That blindness is not permanent.

Paul continues in Romans 11 that “ALL Israel will be saved.”

So the parable paints the current crisis, but Paul proclaims the future restoration. That is what we have been saying all along, that Christ will reconcile all things and all people.

The gulf is real, but in Christ the veil is lifted,
and those once blind will see,
and those once far off will be brought near, in their due order.

The Great Gulf Additional Congruent Interpretations

What’s amazing, and another testament to how rich this parable truly is, is the fact that the “great gulf fixed” in Luke 16:26 does not have just one possible symbolic meaning, but another major one, and still fits within the interpretation of the parable as a whole.

While spiritual blindness (Romans 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:14–15) is a strong and fitting interpretation, there are several layers of meaning that could apply, especially when we remember that parables are meant to be multi-dimensional, not mathematical.

Here are the main interpretive possibilities for the “gulf,” all of which align with the symbolic, not literal, reading of the parable:

1. Spiritual Blindness / Hardened Heart
(As we have already covered, Romans 11:25, 2 Corinthians 3:14–15)

The rich man can see, but cannot reach, this suggests intellectual awareness but spiritual incapacity
He still does not repent, he only wants relief or favors
The gulf is the veil over the heart, the inability to perceive and enter into the covenant promises through faith

But the gulf can also represent…

2. The Divide Between the Old and New Covenants

The “gulf” symbolizes the separation between the old system (law, temple, ancestry) and the new covenant in Christ
The rich man represents those clinging to the old covenant identity (sons of Abraham by flesh)
Lazarus represents those who enter by grace (faith alone)
Hebrews 8:13

“By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete…”

Once the veil is torn and the new covenant established, there is a fixed divide, you cannot bring the old into the new.

3. A Hardened Conscience / The Finality of Rejection

The “gulf” could represent a self-made chasm, a person so entrenched in pride and entitlement that even judgment does not bring repentance
The rich man still treats Lazarus like a servant (“send him…”) even in his torment
This shows a heart that has not changed, even in judgment, a warning about the danger of spiritual arrogance and hardened conscience
Proverbs 29:1

“He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing.”

So the gulf = the finality of self-deception, not a literal place.

4. The Social and Economic Divide Reversed in the Kingdom

The “gulf” could be a symbol of the chasm between rich and poor, the privileged and the outcast
In this life, the rich man created the divide by ignoring Lazarus at his gate
In the afterlife (that is the ages to come, in the parable), the divide is flipped and fixed
Luke 6:24–25

“Woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort…”

Jesus is turning economic injustice into a theological lesson, what you ignored on earth becomes your anguish in the age to come.

5. The Irreversibility of Covenant Decisions

The “gulf” may symbolize the permanence of certain covenant choices
Once the “age” shifts, the opportunity to change sides is sealed
Like Noah’s ark door being shut, the season of repentance ends and the consequence begins
This fits Jesus’ constant warnings:

“Strive to enter through the narrow door… once the master of the house has risen and shut the door…” (Luke 13:24–25)

It is not about eternal torment, it is about the finality of decision within an age.

Summary of Possible Symbolic Interpretations of the “Gulf”:

Interpretation	Meaning
Spiritual blindness	Israel’s hardening until Christ is revealed
Old vs. New covenant divide	You cannot cross from law to grace after rejecting Christ
Hardened conscience	Pride becomes permanent if repentance is resisted
Social reversal	The divide between rich and poor is judged and flipped
Covenantal finality	The day comes when choices cannot be undone

Final Thought:
Parables are not designed to give us a literal map, but a spiritual mirror.

The “gulf” is not a canyon in the afterlife.
It is the tragic result of a life clinging to the wrong foundation,
privilege without mercy, tradition without transformation, identity without humility.

And the good news?
That gulf is not fixed for you, because you are still hearing the parable.

Hebrews 3:15

“Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your heart.”

Review

You see this parable is not about a torturous hellish chamber for individuals who are rich after life, or even a story about individual fate after death at all. It is a prophetic parable about national identity, covenantal reversal, and the unveiling of God’s new redemptive order.

In fact most of what Paul wrote about Israel very well could have come directly from this parable itself. This one parable alone may have directly influenced Paul’s revelation, or at the very least, it aligns perfectly with the revelation Paul later received and preached.

Let’s talk it out:

1. Not Personal, It’s National and Covenantal

The rich man represents Israel under the old covenant, more specifically, unrepentant religious Israel, resting in ancestry, status, and Torah privilege
Lazarus represents the Gentiles, the outcasts, the poor in spirit, who were excluded from the covenant table but are now brought near (Ephesians 2:12–13)
The “death” in the story is not just physical, it is symbolic of the death of one age and the birth of another
Jesus is speaking in covenant code, not just about a rich man going to hell

2. Catalyst to Paul’s Revelation? Absolutely Possible
Paul was a Pharisee, deeply trained in the law, and if anyone would have heard Jesus’ parable as a warning shot to Israel’s leaders, it would be someone like him.

Look at the themes in the parable and compare them to Paul’s deepest insights:

Parable Theme	Pauline Revelation
Rich man calls Abraham “Father”	“Not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (Romans 9:6–8)
Lazarus comforted in Abraham’s bosom	“Gentiles are heirs with Israel…” (Ephesians 3:6)
The poor are exalted, rich cast down	“God chose the weak… to shame the strong” (1 Corinthians 1:27)
Great gulf fixed (blindness)	“A partial hardening has come to Israel…” (Romans 11:25)
The rich man’s brothers will not listen	“Even if one rises from the dead…” = foreshadow of Israel rejecting resurrection
Reversal of covenant access	“You who were far off have been brought near…” (Ephesians 2:13)

This is not coincidence, this is a pattern. Paul’s revelation, especially in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, is like the unpacking of this parable, but with full apostolic authority and Spirit-breathed clarity.

3. Jesus Was Laying the Foundation for the Gospel to the Gentiles
This parable is a warning to Israel’s leaders and a preview of what God is about to do:

The ones sitting at the table (the rich) will be cast out
The ones outside the gate (Lazarus) will be seated with Abraham
The kingdom is shifting, and those who presume inclusion are in danger of exclusion
Those who are “without God and without hope” (Ephesians 2:12) are now recipients of God’s help, Lazarus = “God has helped”

4. This Was the Gospel Before the Gospel Fully Broke Open
Jesus, in this parable, is:

Preaching Paul’s gospel before Paul was converted
Foreshadowing the inclusion of the Gentiles before Peter’s vision in Acts 10
Declaring the death of the old system before the veil was torn

5. The “Hardening” and the Next Age — Not Individual Afterlife, But the Next Era of Redemption
Here is where it all comes together: Paul’s teaching on the “partial hardening” of Israel was not about God permanently rejecting individuals, nor about an afterlife fate locked in at death for individuals. It was about the purpose of the next age, the age that would dawn after Israel’s rejection of Messiah, when the Gentiles would be grafted in and spiritual riches transferred (Romans 11:11–15).

Romans 11:25–26

“A partial hardening has come upon Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved…”

The parable’s “great gulf” is not about a fixed chasm in the afterlife, but the temporary barrier during the present age, so that the covenant blessings could go out to the nations, and eventually circle back to restore Israel.

The parable and Paul’s teaching both look beyond their present age to the next:

The rich man (old-covenant Israel) experiences loss in this age, not eternal torment, but an age of reversal
Lazarus (the Gentiles) receives covenant mercy in this new age
But the story does not end there. Paul goes further:

1 Corinthians 15:22–24

“For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end…”

Just as Christ was raised as the “firstfruits,” the rest will follow in due time, each in his own order. The transfer of covenant blessing to the Gentiles is not the final word. In the fullness of time, God’s purpose is the complete reconciliation of all, first the Jew, then the Gentile, then “all things” (Romans 11:32, Colossians 1:20).

In other words, the death of the rich man in the “next age” in the parable is about a redemptive order, not individual finality. It is about the temporary hardening and exclusion, so that God may “have mercy on all.” The end of the story is restoration, not ruin.

Final Revelation:
This is not a morality tale about hellfire.
It is a covenantal wake-up call, a prelude to Romans 9–11.
A parable of reversal that eventually becomes the apostolic blueprint for the inclusion of the Gentiles and the remnant of Israel.

And yes, if Paul ever reflected on this parable (and how could he not?), he would have seen:

“The thing I once trusted in, my ancestry, my law-keeping, my seat at the table, was the very thing blinding me.”
“But now, the outsiders are in. And I was the rich man, until I died and saw the truth.”

So yes, this parable was never just personal.
It was revolutionary.
And it is the blueprint for the next phase, that culminates in the ultimate phase, that is the reconciliation of all things.

Salvation Doctrine?

Let’s move on to our next point: when the false doctrine of eternal conscious torment supporters try to use this parable as proof for heaven and hell, they inadvertently have to support its claims on how a person gets to heaven or hell.

1. But is this parable really about “how to get to heaven”?
If so… it makes no sense.

Where is faith in Christ?
Where is the cross?
Where is the resurrection?

If Jesus were mapping out “the way to heaven or hell,” the centerpiece would not be crumbs, clothes, and Abraham’s chest. The gospel is always faith in Him, not works, wealth, or poverty.

Which means this parable is not about the afterlife. It is about covenant reversal, who really belongs in God’s favor.

2. If it’s about salvation, then it’s works-based

Lazarus is saved because he is poor?
The rich man is damned because he is wealthy?

That is the exact opposite of the gospel.

Ephesians 2:8–9

“By grace you have been saved through faith… not of works.”

If people insist this parable is literal instructions about heaven and hell, then they are preaching salvation by poverty — and that is nonsense.

3. “Even if one rises from the dead…”
This is the nuclear line.

Did someone rise from the dead? Yes. Jesus did.
Did most of Israel still reject Him? Yes.

Jesus is not just storytelling. He is prophesying His own resurrection and the hardness of Israel’s heart to it.

The rich man’s “five brothers” = the priestly house of Israel = proof this is a covenantal warning, not a literal tour of hell.

4. Symbolism of Water and Fire

Fire/heat = God’s judgment
Always throughout Scripture. Never neutral. Always purging, exposing, testing.

Hebrews 12:29

“Our God is a consuming fire.”

Water = God’s Spirit, presence, power
John 7:38

“Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.”
John 4:14
“The water I give will become in him a spring… leading to eternal life.”

So the rich man’s desperate cry:

“Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue…”

is not about hydration in flames. It is symbolic of:

Longing for God’s presence
Needing the Spirit’s refreshing
Craving what he rejected his whole life: the living water

That is the irony. He had Torah, temple, ancestry, but the one thing he needed was the water of God’s Spirit.

5. The Real Point

Not about how to avoid hell
Not about where your soul goes when you die
It is about the blindness of privilege, the reversal of covenant, and the desperate need for the Spirit of God

The rich man’s true torment?
Not flames.
But the realization: “I missed the water. I missed the presence. I missed Christ.”

Conclusion
If this parable is really about how to get to heaven, why is Jesus leaving out faith, the cross, and Himself? Why is it based on works?

The answer is obvious and simple: because it is not about how to get to heaven or hell as an individual. This parable is clearly about the rejection of Israel in the next age and their hardening, contrasted with the inclusion of the Gentiles.

False Theology and False Doctrine

Lastly we would like to clearly point out exactly what the eternal conscious torment supporters are doing.

They are:

Extracting doctrines from what is not said, rather than what is
Ignoring allegorical and cultural context
Treating silence and imagery as literal theology

What they think it proves:

That hell is a literal place of fire
That people are conscious and suffering after death
That the wicked are eternally cut off from God
That there is a fixed chasm forever separating people
That no one can cross from torment to peace after death

What the parable does not say (but they build anyway):

It never says the torment is eternal
It never says Lazarus is in “heaven” or the rich man is in “hell”
It never mentions final judgment, resurrection, or the lake of fire
It never describes a post-resurrection state, this is pre-resurrection imagery
It never presents the scene as literal, it draws on well-known Jewish folklore, metaphorical to the core

So when teachers build doctrine on what is implied or silent, instead of on what Jesus and the apostles explicitly teach elsewhere, they are literally building doctrine on silence, on shadows, gaps, and metaphors. That is reckless theology.

Why Jesus told the parable:
He was not laying out a map of the afterlife. He was rebuking the Pharisees (Luke 16:14) for their:

Love of money
Rejection of the prophets
Blindness to His coming resurrection

The punchline is verse 31:

Luke 16:31

“If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though One rise from the dead.”

That is the point: spiritual blindness and pride, not eternal torture geography.

The bottom line:
“They build doctrine on the silence of parables” means this:

They create entire systems of eternal torment from stories never intended as systematic theology.

In doing so, they elevate silence, imagery, and implication above the clear promises of restoration, reconciliation, and redemption that saturate the New Testament.

The Hope

It seems fitting to stop here. Like I said, I could write an entire book on this parable because of its richness and depth. But I believe what we have covered is enough to make an exhaustive argument that dismantles and refutes the false doctrine of eternal conscious torment and its misuse of this parable.

For those trapped in that false and heretical camp, this story of the Rich Man and Lazarus has been treated as a pillar, even the cornerstone, of their theology of fear. Yet when read in light of covenant, context, and Christ, it collapses under its own weight.

This parable does not prove God burns His children forever. It proves the opposite: that God overturns pride, exposes false privilege, welcomes the outcast, and fulfills His covenant promises in mercy.

If the “pillar” of their doctrine crumbles here, what does that tell you about the house they have built? It is not built on the Rock, but on sand. And when the storm of truth comes, it cannot stand.

The God revealed in Jesus Christ is not a sadistic tormentor. He is the Father who restores, reconciles, and redeems. His fire is not the fire of endless torture, but the fire of purification and transformation.

So if this parable has been their strongest proof text, it is now exposed as their weakest link. The very story they wield as a weapon of fear turns out to be a prophetic proclamation of love, reversal, and hope for all nations.

I love you, and I hope this opened your eyes and strengthened your faith. The good news is better than fear ever dared to dream. The God who is Love will not abandon His children to an eternal pit of flames. He came to rescue them, heal them, and bring them home.

And that is the gospel.