Luke 16 (NKJV)

In our previous post we considered what the implication would be if we were to have considered these verses as literal statements, now we shall like to see the true meaning of these verses hidden by the Lord from the worldly wise through the use of metaphors and figurative language.

VERSE 19 “There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day.”

In this picture (a figurative portrayal of events) the “rich man” represents the Jewish nation, rich in God’s favor. He was clothed in purple (kingly attire), invested with royalty, for if faithful, the nation of Israel would have inherited the chief Kingdom promises.

The Jews were of a Royal Priesthood because of the promises to Abraham and David. The high calling was first offered to them. The rich man was clothed in the fine linen of righteousness, the Jews being typically a holy people. That is they experienced a typical justification each year by means of the Day of Atonement sacrifices under the Law.

Of course the blood of bulls and goats could never actually justify them, (Heb 10:4) this would require the “better sacrifices” (Heb 9:23)

Now the rich man fared sumptuously, the Jews being the special recipients of God’s favor. His word was given to them. The prophets were sent to them.

As we read in Romans: “What advantage then has the Jew… Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.”– Rom 3:1, 2

VERSE 20 and 21 “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.”

The beggar Lazarus, the associate of dogs, represented the Gentiles who were outcasts from divine favor.

“Lazarus represented the outcasts from divine favor under the Law, who, sin-sick, hungered and thirsted after righteousness, “Publicans and sinners” of Israel, seeking a better life, and truth-hungry Gentiles who were “feeling after God” constituted this class. These, at the time of the utterance of this parable, were entirely destitute of those special divine blessings which Israel enjoyed. They lay at the gate of the rich man.”

The Syrophenician woman was one of these. As Lazarus begged, “Desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table,” she also begged Jesus for a crumb from the table of divine favor.

Jesus reply was, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and cast it to dogs,” she answered, “Truth, Lord. Yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from the Master’s table.”

The name Lazarus means “without help,” and the definition fits not only the beggar in the parable but also the Lazarus whom Jesus would raise subsequently. Both were unable to help themselves. Thus the beggar Lazarus pictures an extreme condition of one who, unable to help himself, craves divine help, hoping for a crumb of favor from the rich man’s table.

The rich man’s “table” was the Law, and the typical blessings and promises it presented to those of that nation who would fulfill its requirements.

Lazarus being “laid at the gate” of the rich man represents how the Gentiles were outside the gate of favor (outside of the typical blessings and promises)–aliens, strangers and foreigners to the commonwealth of Israel. (Eph 2:11-13)

His being “full of sores” (sins) represents the moral defilement in this class, for whose justification no sin-offering had at that time been made. Sin-sick, covered with sores–because they were not sharers in Israel’s typical yearly sin-atonement sacrifices.

Considering the parable on another level, the rich man would represent the scribes and Pharisees, Lazarus the publicans and sinners or Samaritans, and the “dogs which licked his sores” the Gentiles who gave the Samaritans more consideration than their own people, the Jews, did.

VERSE 22 “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.”

“There came a great dispensational change in Israel’s history when as a nation they rejected and crucified the Son of God. Then their typical righteousness ceased-then the promise of royalty ceased to be theirs, and the kingdom was taken from them to be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof-the Gospel Church, “a holy nation, a peculiar people.” (Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 2:7, 9; Malt. 21:43) Thus the “rich man” DIED to all these special advantages, and soon he (the Jewish nation) found himself in a cast-off condition, in tribulation and affliction. In such condition that nation has suffered to this day.

Lazarus also DIED: the condition of the humble Gentiles and the God-seeking “outcasts” of Israel underwent a great change, being carried by the angels (messengers-apostles, etc.) to Abraham’s bosom. Abraham is represented as the father of the faithful, and receives all the children of faith, who are thus recognized as the heirs of all the promises made to Abraham; for the children of the flesh are not the children of God, “but the children of the promise are counted for the seed” (children of Abraham); “which seed is Christ;” and “if ye be Christ’s, then are ye [believers] Abraham’s seed [children], and heirs according to the [Abrahamic] promise.” Gal. 3:29

Yes, the termination of the condition of things then existing was well illustrated by the figure, death-the dissolution of the Jewish polity and the withdrawal of the favors which Israel had so long enjoyed. There they were cast off and have since been shown “no favor,” while the poor Gentiles, who before had been “aliens from the commonwealth [the polity] of Israel and strangers from the covenant of promise [up to this time given to Israel only] having no hope and without God in the world” were then “made nigh by the blood of Christ” and reconciled to God.” – Eph. 2:12, 13. (The herald of Christ’s kingdom vol. XL February, 1957)

In our next post we will take a look at the next several verses from the account, first looking at them from a literal perspective to determine if they make any sense and then from the parabolic perspective.