Many have difficulty in accepting that this is a parable, in the following study we were attempting to show one of our fellow forum members of a bible study forum we frequent why we believe this to be a parable. Our friend like many professed Christians believing in an actual Hell of fire and brimstone in which they believe is the eternal abode of all the wicked contends that the Parable of the rich man and the beggar proves this, that this is not a parable, but a literal statement of facts. We of course disagree and so the question was asked of us to: Highlight the parts of Jesus’ teaching OF HIS DOCTRINE, “YOU” claim are NOT Factual Truths

Because we contended that this was a parable a metaphoric presentation rather than a literal presentation we were accused of claiming that our Lord’s statements here were not a doctrine (teaching) of Christ a factual truth. Our reply was that no one was claiming that this parable is not a doctrine of Christ. He’s the one presenting the parable so obviously it’s his doctrine. However your insistence that it is to be taken as a “factual” or literal statement of events is what’s in dispute here.

If it is literal at all, the whole thing is literal, and if it is symbolic at all, the whole thing is symbolic. Therefore we say without any question, this is a parable, because to take it literally would be to involve ourselves in statements of absurdity.

Jesus Taught Parabolically.

“The Apostle records, as the Prophets had foretold, that Jesus opened His mouth in parables and in dark sayings and without a parable spoke He not unto the people. (Matt. 13:34, 35) This has been a part of our difficulty. We have taken the words of Jesus literally when their very form should have shown us that they could not have been meant literally.

Do we not use figures of speech to-day?

For instance, if in conversation someone said to us, “When John Smith heard that, he burst into tears,” would we understand literally that John Smith burst and became a shower of tears? A certain judge, addressing a woman who spoke of her husband’s ill-treatment, asked her if she had tried the Apostle’s remedy of heaping coals of fire on his head. She replied, “No,” but that she had tried hot water without avail. An ignorant person might, perhaps, thus misunderstand the Apostle’s figurative language. But is that an excuse for us, who claim to be more intelligent, to misunderstand it?

Do we not remember the Apostle Peter’s words “Think it not strange concerning the fiery trials which shall try you?” Who is foolish enough to suppose that the Apostle meant literal fire?

Hear the Apostle Paul telling about the trials of faith to be expected in the end of this Age: He says, “Every man’s work shall be tried so as by fire.” Those who have built with gold and silver and precious stones will have their work approved. Those who have filled their ears with false doctrine–“wood, hay and stubble“–will find their work disapproved. The fire of that day will consume it. (1 Cor. 3:12-15)

The Apostle Paul tells us that some will pass through that fire unscathed, and others will have their work destroyed, but will themselves be saved so as by fire. His intention clearly is that this Age will end with a great time of sifting along doctrinal lines. The false doctrines represented by wood, hay and stubble, are now taking fire and will be entirely consumed, whereas all the truths of God’s Word symbolically represented by the Apostle as jewels of gold and silver and precious stones –these will stand the test and abide. Let us build our faith, then, with the proper materials which God’s Word supplies. And let us remember the Apostle’s words, to the effect that the Word of God is sufficient that the man of God may be thoroughly furnished. (2 Tim. 3:16.) And the implication of this is that the decisions of the councils of the “dark ages” are not only unnecessary for God’s people of to-day, but are injurious in proportion as they are out of alignment (harmony) with the words of Jesus and the Apostles.”  (Overland Monthly, Pastor Russell and the Monitor–Part I)

Now as stated it is our contention that this is a parable and that the Lord deliberately chose to use metaphors, i.e. figurative language so as to hide its true meaning from the worldly wise. Thus the things said are NOT the things meant, it is NOT to be taken as literal statement of facts (as the worldly wise so construe it), but as a symbolic or figurative picture if you will.

A parable is defined as “a short narrative in which some important truth is veiled,” or hidden.

Now in order for us to prove that this is a parable, it is necessary to show that if interpreted as a literal statement, it would be an absurdity and anything that would be an absurdity to interpret literally; we would be bound to look upon as a parable and seek to find some parabolic interpretation. And so we shall take this a bit at a time.

First let us consider what the implication of this parable would be IF we were to take what was stated here as LITERAL. After which we will follow up with the parabolic interpretation. Let us begin with the first four verses.

Luke 16 (NKJV)

Verse 19-22 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man also died and was buried.”

Here a comparison is made between two individuals, one a rich man who was well clothe and had plenty to eat, and another a poor beggar full of sores who was laid at the gate of the home of the rich man.

Now note it is NOT SAID that the rich man was a bad man (an immoral man, or a blasphemer of God); the fact is there is no mention at all of any wickedness on his part, nor is it said that the poor man was a good man; (Many tend to jump to unwarranted conclusions and attempt to read something into the text not stated.)

To be rich is not necessarily an evil. There have been good rich men. Abraham was very rich. Our heavenly Father is very rich.

It is not poverty, merely that makes goodness, is it?

Our Lord likewise is rich and for our sakes became poor. So we are not to think that riches merely, mean wickedness. We do not read that this rich man was a bad man, or profane, or anything of the kind, but merely that he was rich and fared sumptuously every day–ate three or four good square meals each day, and that he wore purple and fine linen.

THAT WAS HIS CRIME; whatever it was, it was connected with that matter somehow. Now to say that any man would have to be roasted to all eternity simply because he wore purple or because he wore fine linen, and had plenty to eat, and because he was rich, would be UN-rational.

Continued with next post.