Major1
Well-Known Member
- Sep 17, 2016
- 10,551
- 2,837
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I've heard that one too. Although it's sometimes phrased as "Jesus never used a proper name in a parable". Although I don't see as how a proper name being used automatically completely rules out any chance of it being a parable.
Now there's things that can be considered, beyond that standard blanket rule. One is both Luke 16:1 and Luke 16:19 start out the same way; "There was a certain rich man". Did you ever notice that before?
There's a lot more stuff in examining all of Luke 16:19-31. But let's think about the main thing that sticks out, which is the proper name of Lazerus.
The question is, was that the actual name of an actual person? Or was it symbolic? Did you know that like Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua or more properly Yeshua, Lazerus is the Greek version of Eleazar? So in this story there's Eleazar and Abraham. Now what stands out in that is, before the birth of Issac, a man named Eleazar was Abraham's heir. He was going inherit everything Abraham had. Furthermore it's possible that Eleazar of Damascus was a gentle proselyte.
And if that's the case. Then the rich man dressed in purple and fine linen could be symbolic of the Pharisees (remember that what Jesus said in Luke:16:19-31 was directed at the Pharisees), and Eleazar (Lazerus) was symbolic of the gentiles. For example there's the part about how Eleazar (Lazarus) ate crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, which is reminiscent of Matthew 15:27 where the gentile woman says, "Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table".
That and several other things could be a clear indication of Luke 16:19-31 being a parable of what was going to happen as far as gentiles receiving what only Abraham's heirs through Issac had.
MAXX........Thank you for the post. May I say to you that First, the story is never called a parable. Many other of Jesus’ stories are designated as parables, such as the sower and the seed (Luke 8:4); the prosperous farmer (Luke 12:16); the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6); and the wedding feast (Luke 14:7).
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.
If Jesus, when saying, “I am tormented in this flame,” meant something other than literal suffering in a literal fire, why did He not define that expression in literal terms for us? The same could be said of “Lazarus,” “rich man,” “Abraham,” “great gulf fixed,” and all the other elements in the passage. Jesus left them undefined. Why? The only logical conclusion is that those words were to be taken at face value. He gave no alternative meaning for them because there was no alternative meaning for them. Our Lord Jesus said exactly what He meant about the rich man and Lazarus, and He meant exactly what He said about the rich man and Lazarus. If we disagree with Him, we need to just come out and say that we do not believe the Bible.
The important thing is that 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. In Luke 16:19-31, 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.
Upvote
0