What I find interesting is that the rich man believed Abraham had the power to send Lazarus back to the living. This I don't believe is true but used against the Pharisees. So this is why I lean toward this being a parable.I believe that we are on the same page or at ;east real close to it.
Moose, it is clear to me that this passage of Scripture in Luke 16 is NOT a parable because LITERAL names are used. The same is true concerning Luke 16:18-31, which employs the use of the LITERAL names of Abraham, Lazarus, and Moses. There is NO reason for us to believe that Luke 16:18-31 is a parable, none at all. Jesus NEVER said it was a parable!
Furthermore, Jesus ALWAYS announced when He was speaking in parables, e.g., ...
Matthew 13:24 ..........
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field."
Matthew 13:31 ............
"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field."
There is no mention of a "parable" in Luke 18:31, or of the word "like." There is a clear distinction between the parables Jesus told and the literal accounts. When Jesus warned the Pharisees that there would be "wailing" and "gnashing of teeth" in Hellfire, He was speaking in LITERAL terms.........
"And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth" (Matthew 13:50).
Chris, far be from me to question E.W. Bullingers teachings, However, there are several web site devoted to him and I would encourage you to read some of his other rather controversial teachings.
For every teaching that we can post a web site against Luke 16 being a literal event, we can post the same number for those teachers who claim the opposite. Then it becomes a battle of commentators. I would rather relay on what the Holy Spirit speaks to my heart.
I would say to you that First, the story is never called a parable. The other stories of Jesus' are designated as parables.
Second, the story of the rich man and Lazarus uses the actual name of a person. Such specificity would set it apart from ordinary parables, in which the characters are not named.
Third, this particular story does not fit the definition of a parable, which is a presentation of a spiritual truth using an earthly illustration. The story of the rich man and Lazarus presents spiritual truth directly, with no earthly metaphor. The setting for most of the story is the afterlife, as opposed to the parables, which unfold in earthly contexts.
Now here is what always confuses me. What does it matter if it is a parable???????
Whether the story is a true incident or a parable, the teaching behind it remains the same. Even if it is not a "real" story, it is realistic. Parable or not, Jesus plainly used this story to teach that after death the unrighteous are eternally separated from God, that they remember their rejection of the Gospel, that they are in torment, and that their condition cannot be remedied.
Whether parable or literal account, Jesus clearly taught the existence of heaven and hell as well as the deceitfulness of riches to those who trust in material wealth. I just do not understand the need to reject Luke 16 unless the rejection is rooted in the personal though that there is no such place as hell.
It matters quite a lot if its a parable or not.
I think the question really is why do people find it so objectionable to have hell so described. Because at root that is waht the problem is .
and in reply I would say is that those who do find it so dont really understand the nature of sin or the consequences of it .
in Christ
]gerald
What I find interesting is that the rich man believed Abraham had the power to send Lazarus back to the living. This I don't believe is true but used against the Pharisees. So this is why I lean toward this being a parable.
As stated by MacLaren's Expositions ...........
"Properly speaking, we have here, not a parable-that is, a representation of physical facts which have to be translated into moral or religious truths-but an imaginary narrative, embodying a normal fact in a single case. "
The "gulf" is a barrier which does not allow the individuals to communicate one with another, not something that does not allow truth and light to be learned.
Lazarus and the rich man tells us four things. (1) Praying to a person already physically dead will not help our present condition, unless his name is Jesus Christ. (2) Someone coming back from the dead will not convince anyone as Jesus already proved that himself when he rose from the dead in his physical body, and it did not change any of the religious leaders beliefs of his day. (3) People in Heaven know what is going on earth with out having to be here. Those in hell can see those in the Kingdom of God. (4) After physical death you can not change your position of were you will spend eternity.
Luke 13:27.. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity.
Luke 13:28.. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
It is a parable because it is a story Jesus tells that illustrates a simple spiritual lesson, and it is the fifth in a series of five parables:
The lost sheep - Luke 15:3-7
The lost coin - Luke 15:8-10
The lost boy - Luke 15:11-32
The unjust rich man - Luke 16:1-15
The rich man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31.
The message of the parable?
First, we learn that it is in this temporal, physical life that we make eternal decisions that are irrevocable.
Second, we learn about the fate of those who place their dependence on the value of possessions and wealth, contrasted against those who place their dependence on Jesus Christ for salvation and for needs met. The former eventually discover that their destiny is a state far worse than the poorest and most afflicted who trusts God.
I can not agree. However, whether it is or not does not take anything away from the truths that is found there in.
My point and that of many others is that Jesus NEVER mentioned LITERAL names or places when speaking in parables--it was always "a certain man" or "a far country." In sharp contrast, we have in Luke 16 definitive, distinctive, recognizable people mentioned in Luke 16:18-31; namely, Abraham, Lazarus, Moses, the prophets, and the dead.
Thus, it would be certainly unscholarly not to accept this account as 100% true which is my point. Some people try to allege that Luke 16:18-31 is not a true story BECAUSE it is a parable is to accuse the Lord of lying, because He is using LITERAL names, and thus attributing meaning and character references to those people.
IMO opinion it is a trap to deny the literalness of the Scriptures. Scientifically, historically, astronomically, archeologically, horticulturally, medically, and in so many other ways--the Word of God is 100% accurate and literal.
That is MY point not withstanding whether it is a parable or not IT IS still the Word of God.
I agree Gerald. You missed my point. IT IS IMPORTANT to understand that Luke 16 is not a parable.........BUT, even if it was, my point was, what difference would it make???? It is the Word of God just as is the story of the Red Sea parting and a talking jack ass. Why would we want to say it is less than those things is beyond me. If they were real why would Luke 16 be any different is what I wanted to get across.
Agreed.Understood thanks
Because accepting it as a parable (as some will do)will not only diminish the teaching of the Lord but also make it a likeness to what?
and of course will some think excuse them from speaking the truth of it before the world .
and indeed to Gods people.
Because while most if not all parables concern the Kingdom of God. Hell is the first consequence of a life at emnity with God unrepented of.
The parting of the red sea was a geographical and historical event .
So was the Garden of Eden and all that occurred in that place.
The talking ass to Baalam was also a real and accurate recorded event .
Which if we allow the world the flesh and the devil to explain them all away or make into 'parables' while not changing the truth does change those who do so for the worst.
The Word of God which we call the Holy Bible is of God ,inspired of God and is Gods record of events and how he sees them .
Faith is not blind but sees and understands things as it were afar of and we act accordingly .
Afar off; being past present and future.
A wrong understanding of scripture ,dislocated truth , misinterpretated truth and missapplied truth will all in direct proportion effect our lives accordingly and hinder , blunt, and stop any faith in God .For faith in God comes not just by hearing but by understanding the Word of God.
In this case to call it a parable which is "like unto" that used the natural to convey spiritual truths when they were applied correctly . When the Lord is speaking about a spiritual reality will and does simply lead to confusion if not straight away(does it ever?) but over time as scripture is more and more disjointed.
If you take the phrase the Word of God and "man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word that proceedeth form the mouth of God "
It should be understood that the very nature of words is that they are expressions of thought .
That while the thought might be hidden and unknown by words we express them and to understand the thought expressed each word in its right order and unfolding construct has to be heard from beginning to end to understand what is being said.
If that applies to men how much the more does it apply to God?Who in sundry times and in divers ways spake to us by the prophets who hath in these last days spoken to us by His Son"
Prophets we know can only speak in part .
For one thing they were not "made perfect" without us . But God all the more willing to speak to us perfectly needed the perfect man to express Himself to us perfectly.
Jesus was not a messenger who carried the message he was the message . That for 4000 years God had spoken on in parts one word at a time so to speak. Even in the Garden of Eden. Where he is first mentioned.
How much the more then do we need to take more earnest head to what He said?
In Christ
gerald
Jesus never named the righteous man. Names don't cinch it that it is not a parable.
Just the known fact that no one has been cast into the fires of hell yet, by virtue of the fact that Judgment Day has yet to occur, should be enough to understand that it is a parable.
Literalness is not compromised by any parable...in fact, it is demonstrated.
Hello @Major,
The story of the Rich man and Lazarus is not a parable, I agree: for the Lord does not tell us it is so; it is a continuation of the lesson that He is giving the Pharisees. He has just denied their inconsistencies in regard to the law concerning marriage (v.18), and then follows straight away to speak of 'a rich man' clothed in purple and fine linen, which is descriptive of the role that the Pharisees had taken to themselves of both, 'rulers' and 'priests', purple being the colour worn by Kings and fine linen by the priests. The story then proceeds to expose their teachings.
* In saying this, no injustice is done to our Lord: no accusation of lying is latent within it: it is simply taking it as it stands, in the light of the testimony of all Scripture. For, the Lord would not deny the testimony of Scripture, and in order for this to be a story based on fact, it would indeed do so. The Pharisees made the word of God of none effect by their traditions, the Lord Jesus Christ exposes this.
'Thus saith the LORD,
"Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
neither let the mighty man glory in his might,
let not the rich man glory in his riches:
But let him that glorieth glory in this,
that he understandeth and knoweth Me,
that I am the LORD
which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness,
in the earth:
for in these things I delight,"
saith the LORD.'
(Jer 9:23,24)
May His Name be praised!
In Christ Jesus
Our risen and glorified
Saviour, Lord and Head.
Chris
The Lake of Fire isn't open for business until the GWT judgment. Hell is not the Lake of Fire. As you should see, it is where the unrighteous dead are confined until they are brought out to be judged. The whole entire place will be cast into the Lake of Fire in the end. So....two distinct places.You said.............
"Just the known fact that no one has been cast into the fires of hell yet".
Now, Biblically speaking that just is not true is it sister. You are giving YOUR personal opinion and not Bible exegesis.
That depends entirely how one understands the written Word of God doesn't it my sister. That right there is the reason on my insistence on the LITERAL interpretation of God's Word.
Luke 16:23-24...........
"And in HELL he lift up his eyes, being in TORMENTS, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I AM RORMENTED IN THIS FLAME."
There it is in RED and white. It is either true, the written Word of God or it is not true and is a false teaching whether it be a parable or literal.
Judgment day will in no way change the position or location of anyone in hell/torments today. The only change will be in the name by which it is called. It is hell today and after the Great White Throne Judgment of the wicked lost it will be the "Lake Of Fire".
Revelation 20:13-15.............
"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and HELL delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
OOOPs.....there it is!
The Lake of Fire isn't open for business until the GWT judgment. Hell is not the Lake of Fire. As you should see, it is where the unrighteous dead are confined until they are brought out to be judged. The whole entire place will be cast into the Lake of Fire in the end. So....two distinct places.
G'day there Major.Again, it is Biblically true that parables are hypothetical illustrations and never name specific people. Luke 16 names "Lazarus". "Abraham" and "Moses".
G'day there Major.
It seems to me that much is being built on the fact that unlike (other) parables, Jesus mentions specific names......good point I think, until one inquires about the true and specific identity of 'the rich man'. Did he not also have a name?
Or would any rich guy do? Then why would not any poor guy do also?
It is of some interest to me that the only undeniably historically true Lazarus we meet in scripture was Jesus' friend who incidentally was rich, not poor!
I hope you or some one else here can explain why Abraham, Moses and Lazarus are named specifically as historic persons, yet the rich guy has no historic identity. Also what was the historic identity of Lazarus (the poor guy)?
It seems right to me that the original hearers of Jesus' words should know of the 'poor' and sickly Lazarus just as they would know of Abraham and Moses.
Now I ask this (not of you only Major) because if the name Lazarus was as meaningless to those people then as it is to us now, where does it really leave us in our quest to understand this matter?
I trust that my questions have not been dealt with in detail before, as I must confess to having only read the last two pages of this thread.