I reject the theory that Luke 16 is a parable.
Let's work our way backwards~I'll deal first with Luke 16.
The truth is, as a literal event, this story brings us to many absurd conclusions. For example, without symbolism, it implies that the rich man went to hell because he was literally clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day. There is no mention of him committing sin in any way, or even of being uncharitable to the beggar. It simply states that he had his riches in this world, and the beggar has his in the next. Riches is not a sin, else Solomon and a host of other prophets would be condemned. It also implies that Lazarus was blessed because he was at the rich man's gate, full of sores, and begging crumbs while the dogs came and licked his sores. If all this indeed were to be interpreted as a literal narrative, based on what is written here, the only conclusion that we could draw is that beggars and those who have sores, go to heaven. While those wearing fine linen colored purple, or who is rich and has means, are destined for the torment in hades. Of course, that makes no sense, but without a symbolic meaning, this is the only conclusion from the passages that we can reach. The Bible shows us that many righteous men who were very rich. Righteous Joseph, the son of Israel, held the treasures of the Pharaoh and giving to whom he would, and was arrayed like a royal prince as second man in the realm. Again, righteous Job was God blessed and a God-fearing man, and yet he was also so rich, with as many as 7,000 animals, he was spoken of as the greatest of all the men of the east.
A parable is simply a human or earthly analogy, which obviously doesn't have to be current, real people, or real events. It can put forth a simple principle, such as the proverbs. Likewise, in the parable of Lazarus God is painting a picture, the importance of what is our present earthly spiritual condition (
equated to rich man or poor), and the "finality" in the after-life results of it. It shows how he who died spiritual por because of his life on earth, cannot either help or be helped, so that all must get their help in this present life. That is the moral and warning of this story. That is why it is in the present tense. It is not declaring that this is an analogy of events that happen concurrently after men are cast into the torment of hell at the death of the body. Rather, it is showing us how the 'present' is the only place we can gain deliverance (
Roman Catholic praying for the dead, and alleged purgatory notwithstanding) from this awful place they will be cast into at the last day's judgment. How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation? The answer is, we can't! Now is the acceptable time for salvation! This is the symbolic picture here.
Another reason that some Christians give for believing that this is a true story is implied in their question, "
why would Lazarus be identified by name, if this was a parable?" However, we could likewise use the reverse of this logic and ask, "
Why would the rich man not be identified by name, if this wasn't a parable?" It is the same tactic, and in neither case has any sound validity. The reason that Lazarus is named is because God assigns
spiritual significance to names, and there is nothing in scripture that would preclude Him from doing so in a parable. That would be like saying that the figure of Elijah coming to prepare the way of the Lord, cannot be John the Baptist, because Elijah was "named," and thus it has to be his literal coming again. But we know that this is nonsense, as Jesus said, "and if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come ~Matt 11:14," showing us that John was the fulfillment of that prophetic figure. In other words, he came spiritually (luke 1:17) or allegorically as Elijah did, but the name didn't mean he was physically Elijah. So this arbitrary rule that because someone is named in an allegory, it must be literal or physical, is without Biblical validation.
This parable isn't declaring that all this happens simultaneously, or that this rich man in hell had eyes, or had brothers that were still on earth while he is being tormented, or even that water could literally give him relief or cool his tongue. Rather, it is a parable showing what the judgment of the grave is, "from our present perspective in time." From man's perspective, this is what hellfire will be like, and this is its finality. It does not mean that men will be living on earth while other men are being tormented in Hellfire for their sins. That is a Biblical impossibility, considering all of scripture. For man is not cast into the lake of fire until
after the judgment. We understand that Scripture does not exist in a vacuum. It cannot contradict itself, it must all be considered,
in context, and in agreement with itself.
If this hell indeed was the hell of eternal torment, then why would God raise them up from here in the second resurrection, to then be cast into torment? And why Does God say they know nothing, cannot speak, and are in silence. If the parable of Lazarus is to be understood "literally," then they can both speak and know and are not in silence. It absolutely makes no sense whatsoever, and that is what always happens when man considers scripture in a vacuum. It contradicts itself, which is God's way of telling us that our understanding of it is
flawed.
The Parabolic Application to Israel
Is the rich man and Lazarus a parable? Of course it is. In the context of the whole chapter of luke chapter sixteen, it is clear that in this spiritual signification, Jesus is condemning Israel (leaders) for their pride to trust in their own conceit and glory. In other words, God is equating riches with the pride of man who trusts in his own righteousness, and poverty with the humility of men who trust in the righteousness of Christ for all things, and not the works of his own hands. In the very same chapter, Christ spoke of the same analogy of riches just a few verses before this parable of Lazarus. Read the parable of the unjust stewart.
Luke 16:10-15
- "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.
- If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?"
- And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?
- No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
- And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.
- And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."
Clearly, God is equating unrighteous riches (mamon) to that which Israel has as stewards, and how they were not faithful with~It is the very same warning against the haughty heart and self sufficiently that God gives the seven Churches in Revelation.
Revelation 3:17
- "Because thou sayest, I am Rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
- I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
- As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent."
Here we see the true riches versus that which man thinks is wealth. This is the rebuke of the Lord against His people who think themselves rich, but who in God's eyes were poor. In other words, their thinking that they were rich and needed nothing. God equates this to their thinking they were righteous of themselves and didn't need the righteousness of Christ. And that's the exact same figure Christ is using in this parable of the unjust steward. The riches entrusted to Israel is the righteous gospel of Christ which was not dealt to the poor. It wasn't physical riches, but the spiritual riches of agape charity. The very same principle as the Parable of the servant
[7] who hid the riches that God gave him, instead of putting it to good use to help the poor. Again, it's not the physical poor in view, but the poor in spirit who hunger after righteousness, which Israel was the steward of. To loose the strangers from the prison house of Satan, to give the waters of Life of the gospel to a thirsty soul. This is what caring for the poor and needy consists of.
We could keep going, but enough to show without question Luke 16:19-31 is a parable spoken against Israel and their spiritual leaders.
Then he spoke the parable recorded in 19-31
to them! Context drives our interpretation, what drives yours? Your favorite preacher?
