The parable, as any parable of the Gospels, has many significances. One can discern more literal, contextual and more metaphoric, even supra-contextual meanings; often the latter are deeper and more spiritually instructive, than the literal and immediately contextual ones. Here I will concern two things: 1. What is the gist of the parable in the context it was given and 2. Does Jesus speak about human persons continuing living in another than bodily dimension (given that body is dead and buried) after a bodily, physical death.

1. The gist of the parable:

It clearly speaks about the futility of life with no other purpose than self-gratification and following of earthly desires, forgetting the higher purpose, that of fulfilling divine commandments. And what are those forgotten commandments? Clearly the two-une commandment of double love: loving God and loving one's neighbour as oneself. Thus, it is not riches as such that is reprimanded in this parable, but forgetfulness of God and of neighbour, who features in the parable as Lazarus. Now, Lazarus is disregarded, because he is nobody according to human, perverted categories, but for God nobody is nobody, and when we disregard such nobodies, we violate divine commandment of loving neighbour as ourselves. This is a more "down-to earth" albeit credible interpretation.

But I have read more spiritual figurative interpretations also: Lazarus, could denote Jesus Christ Himself, for as He says in any needful person He can be perceived (Matt 25:45); the "rich man" - the chosen nation of Jews who had all riches of prophesies and Law; however, because they gave no heed to the main thing in their religion, namely, that "God desires mercy and not sacrifice" (Hosea 6:6), all the rest, those lengthy rituals and religious observances, figuratively expressed in this parable as "daily feasts" availed for nothing. On the contrary, since representatives of pagan nations practiced mercifulness without knowing Law, they became closer to Jesus and, eventually, they, and not Jewish religious teachers, Pharisees, Sadducees etc. came to the correct theology and acknowledged and inherited the true Messiah. Thus, mercifulness and correctness of theological visions are intrinsically connected. The pagan nations are expressed in this parable as "dogs" (with an ironical reprimanding of many a Jews, who seriously held such a derogatory vision on non-Jews, like in Matt 15:27), and their act of mercy in that they, overcoming the fear of being thrown stones to them by the servants of the rich man, still come and lick the wounds of Lazarus, comforting thus him as much as they can. Thus, everybody licks wounds of Christ, whoever helps and acts mercifully towards his needful neighbours, and the last term includes the entire mankind, as clearly stated in the parable on merciful Samaritan.

2. Did Jesus teach that there is a continuation of life for humans after a physical death and this continuation can be either blissful or, on the contrary, tormenting?

Of course, the parable is not about concrete historical persons here, like the parable on the prodigal son. However, when Jesus gives parables, He does not e v e r tell fairy tales or phantasy stories, but conveys real possibilities and ontologically sound doctrines. All His parables without exception are exempt from ontologically impossible fictions. Thus, neither here does He deviate from this general rule and tells an ontologically truthful account that human person does not die together with the physical death, but his full personality is preserved and can enjoy bliss, incomparably greater than any bliss on earth, and also, be tormented, not in a bodily way, for body is dead and buried, with unspeakable pains.

The same He says without any parable but plainly in Luke 12:4-5: “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." - Now, what is thrown "to hell" after body is already dead, and, say, turned to ashes after cremation? And if together with body also human personality dies, then why should anybody be afraid of something totally dead being thrown anywhere? For, in fact, if man dies and is annihilated altogether, then it is impossible to throw to hell or anywhere that which is annihilated and thus non-existent, for only something that exists can be acted upon and thrown or tossed somewhere. But even if it exists, but without any slightest feature of understanding and perception, then there is no difference whatsoever whether it exists or does not exist, for with no perception and no understanding any notion of fear is annihilated also. Moreover, Jesus clearly implies that if man lives a good life and is more afraid of being thrown to the hell than of death, then he will not be thrown to hell after death for sure. Now, if this relates only to bodies and not to something in us, the very core of our personality that survives the body, then this is a lie, for bodies of even very good persons can be desecrated in a most godless way (remember Hector's body desecrated by Achilles). It is foolish to even suppose that the fear Jesus speaks about applies only to our fear only during this life for that our bodies will be desecrated, even if we shall not perceive this any more; like atheists who believe not either in God or in immortality of souls, fear about their good name being preserved in history, with not even a slightest hope that they will be also aware that posterior generations remember them as good men. But Jesus does not speak about such a hopeless this-worldly fear, but about fear that after physical death the non-physical core of our personality will be fully preserved and alive, and this personality can either suffer for the misdeeds committed during historical life, or enjoy bliss for the mercifulness that he has gathered and made a part of his character and personality already in the historical life.

Thus, the parable gives us a true, ontologically plausible glimpse to the afterlife. It is another question, whether the Sheol or Hell mentioned in the parable is the same as the Gehenna, for some theologians distinguish between the two, saying that Gehenna applies to the very final judgment which will be enforced after the Second Advent, whereas Sheol is still a preliminary state from which there is still a possibility to be delivered by prayers and merciful deeds of people who love the deceased person. In fact, the rich man is tormented in Sheol, but he does not turn into a pusillanimous demon or imp as to desire other humans be seduced and dragged where he is tormented, in order to feel a certain evil and demonic jubilation. On the contrary, the good features that were dormant in him during historical life, are now fully awoken, and he earnestly cares for his loved ones who still live historical lives that they may improve their behaviour and not share his fate. There is a great nobility and deep dignity in this tormented man, as a matter of fact, for he definitely would be happy, even while in hell, if he would see that his loved ones escaped his fate by living virtuous lives. That's why I think the theologians who consider that the Sheol described in this parable is still a preliminary place before the final judgment, could be right, for this dignified man does not fit to the eternal punishment for sure: why? because Satan would be eternally irritated by his dignity and by his heartfelt care for his loved ones. Satan would hardly suffer such a noble one in his domain and vicinity.