the rich man & Lazarus is not a parable

[Cockcrow]

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable of Jesus like most people falsely believe, it is sickening how mainstream this false narrative of "its just a parable" when the reality is that it is actually a true story. Jesus never named real names in Parables, and in Luke 16:19-31 he names multiple real people 1. Lazarus the beggar 2. Abraham 3. Moses 4. The Prophets. Jesus clearly was teaching about the reality of eternal conscious torment in hell.
Luke 16:19-31

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 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 tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Multiple things we learn from this true story that Jesus gives, 1. Hell is immediate after last breath, 2. Hell is a real place of torment 3. You will feel pain, punishment in hell. 3. You will have full memory in hell 4. Once you're in hell it is too late (nothing can be done for you, there is no salvation in hell) 5. People who go to hell deserve to go there (the rich man didn't argue or protest with Abraham about his own salvation, he simply was begging for Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers, and also begging for water, relief from his torment) 6. People preaching The word of God bible (Moses and prophets) is what saves people, not physical signs, or miracles.

Jesus obviously tells this true story to warn us of the reality of hell. one can not simply dismiss this as "just a parable" when the Lord Jesus Christ was so specific here. Also there are some weird people who teach that "Abraham's bosom" is actually a place, or some good part of hell, but that is not biblical. Abrahams bosom is a body part, not a location.

 

[Cockcrow]

also another thing I left out: This story confirms the reality that hell is fire, as Jesus taught many times in the NT, the rich man said" I am tormented in this flame"there is more to learn here I am probably leaving out. but the reality is this story is not "just a parable" as some claim, it is reality. and By the way that is what people in the past have believed I am not inventing any new strange doctrine. A lot of others believe that it is not a parable, but a real story too.

 

[sparow]

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable of Jesus like most people falsely believe, it is sickening how mainstream this false narrative of "its just a parable" when the reality is that it is actually a true story. Jesus never named real names in Parables, and in Luke 16:19-31 he names multiple real people 1. a certain rich man 2. Lazarus the beggar 3. Abraham 4. Moses 5. The Prophets. Jesus clearly was teaching about the reality of eternal conscious torment in hell.
Luke 16:19-31

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 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 tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Multiple things we learn from this true story that Jesus gives, 1. Hell is immediate after last breath, 2. Hell is a real place of torment 3. You will feel pain, punishment in hell. 3. You will have full memory in hell 4. Once you're in hell it is too late (nothing can be done for you, there is no salvation in hell) 5. People who go to hell deserve to go there (the rich man didn't argue or protest with Abraham about his own salvation, he simply was begging for Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers, and also begging for water, relief from his torment) 6. People preaching The word of God bible (Moses and prophets) is what saves people, not physical signs, or miracles.

Jesus obviously tells this true story to warn us of the reality of hell. one can not simply dismiss this as "just a parable" when the Lord Jesus Christ was so specific here. Also there are some weird people who teach that "Abraham's bosom" is actually a place, or some good part of hell, but that is not biblical. Abrahams bosom is a body part, not a location.

To say "just a parable" is disrespectful seeing that Jesus always spoke in parables except on special occasions. Of course Luke 16:19-31, is a parable, in the context of one tittle not failing in the Law. Luke 17:1-4, is not a parable

 

[Der Alte]

To say "just a parable" is disrespectful seeing that Jesus always spoke in parables except on special occasions. Of course Luke 16:19-31, is a parable, in the context of one tittle not failing in the Law. Luke 17:1-4, is not a parable

A parable has a specific format something unknown/not understood is explained by comparison with something known/understood. The story of Lazarus and the rich man does not have such a comparison. It might be some other figure of speech but it is not a parable. The ECF who quoted/referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.

First Apology of Justin Martyr. Chap. XXXIV. — Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and Are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.
The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form215 [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased, — in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states (Luk_16:19, etc.) that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him — [Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive216 the preaching of Him who was217 to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist, that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man
Clement of Alexander Chap. Book XI.
There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the hay. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
Tertullian On Idolatry Chap XIII Thus, too, Eleazar[Lazarus] in Hades,(attaining refreshment in Abraham’s bosom) and the rich man, (on the other hand, set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution, their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good.
The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LIV 3. Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Eleazar[Lazarus], then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.​

 

[sandman]

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable of Jesus like most people falsely believe, it is sickening how mainstream this false narrative of "its just a parable" when the reality is that it is actually a true story. Jesus never named real names in Parables, and in Luke 16:19-31 he names multiple real people 1. a certain rich man 2. Lazarus the beggar 3. Abraham 4. Moses 5. The Prophets. Jesus clearly was teaching about the reality of eternal conscious torment in hell.
Luke 16:19-31

One of the first things we must do as students of the Word when we come across something that might be questionable, is determine if it fits with other the rest of scripture. If at any one place there is an apparent contradiction, we need to look at both areas to determine where the discrepancy is. Is it in translation or transmission or is it our understanding …. They both can’t be right so we have to determine where the conflict is.

But if what we are reading proves contradictory to several scripture then we have to look at the one and determine why it contradicts the many.

If you take Luke 16:19-31 at face value there are multiple scripture it would contradict …and Gods word does not contradict itself.

Verse 19 of Luke starts out “There was a certain rich man” Now take a look at Luke chapter 16:1. “There was a certain rich man”…. Starting midway through chapter 14 and ending in chapter 16 verse 31 Jesus is…. teaching by way of parables….. BUT is it a parable? Some say it can’t be due to personal names being used which are not used in other parables. And those people attach meanings and embellish this section with their religious belief ….

So, if it were true to fact …. it would contradict several scriptures in a few different categories …and the only way around that is to ignore those scripture in favor of your beliefs.

A parable is a comparison by sustained resemblance; it is an extended simile. The likeness or resemblance must be sought from the entire context. They generally express an abstract argument by means of using a concrete narrative…

As an aside- Two ancient Greek manuscripts The Bezae Caulabrigiensis, and the Koridethian-Caesarean text include the words: eipen de kai heteran parabolen at the beginning of verse 19, which translate as “And He said also another parable”

This (parable) is addressed to the Pharisees (verse 14). The Pharisees, who believed in rewards and punishment immediately after death….. from their Talmudic beliefs.

Jesus told this to the Pharisees in light of their Talmudic traditions and beliefs. It was from their beliefs that is coined the phrase “Abraham’s Bosom” as one of several afterlife locations. Jesus uses the parable to condemn the Pharisees and catch them in their own erroneous belief.
His intention was not to contradict the entire Old Testament by teaching survival after death. His primary intention was to show that the Pharisees were so evil that even if someone rose from the dead they still wouldn’t listen to him….. Just the opposite appears in Jesus teachings when we look at verses like in

John_ 11:14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead .

and

Luke_ 14:14. And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.


And Jesus could not have denied the abundance of scripture from the Old Testament like that of Ecclesiastes_ 9:5, 6, &10

5: For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6: Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

10: Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.


And how do we get around this?

Jhn 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Verse 31 of Luke 16 concludes the parable

31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

How prophetic it was, as evidenced by his own resurrection from the dead, many of the Pharisees did not believe.

The Pharisees traditions can be found in the Talmud. Their traditions were passed down by many of the early Christian writings* and…. Greek Apocryphal books of the 1st and 2nd century BC (also contained them.)

*John Lightfoot, in…. “A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica” …. documents their beliefs. (Vol xi, pp, 165 -167 & vol xii, pp 159-168)

*Alfred Edersheim in “The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah” refers to these same traditions concerning death and the afterlife.

*Bullinger, E.W. 1960 “selected writings” He devotes three pages of the Pharisees’ tradition on afterlife.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I recently had a question about this, so I figured I'd re-share some things:

First of all, to believe that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable is not a controversial understanding. You can see this in how the ESV is translated with added headers, for example. That is, the translators have added headers such as "The Parable of the Prodigal Son" and "The Parable of the Dishonest Manager", but Luke 16:19-31 is simply referred to as "The Rich Man and Lazarus".

However, looking at the actual Biblical text, neither Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, nor Christ, tell us whether or not the story of the rich man and Lazarus was an actual event or a parable. I'm of the view, like you, that this may be a historical account, or based on real people, and not a parable. But either way, this has no bearing on what is actually taught in it. So even if it is a parable, we do not have the liberty to lazily dismiss what is taught by it as a "mere parable", and we are quite right to correct those who do.

The name "Lazarus" means something like "God a help", "helped by God", or "one whom God helps". So this could be a real person, and/or it could be a name used by our Lord to signify that he is one of God's people, one who believes in Him, one who is helped by God despite his miserable status. Perhaps another thing to note is that Lazarus' name is mentioned whereas the rich man's name is not, and I think we can understand that in light of those whose names are written in heaven, that is believers, and those whose names are blotted out, that is unbelievers.

So, my conclusion would be this: Let's not be contentious about whether Luke 16:19-31 is a parable, a historical record, or involves historical figures, but instead fix our attention on what is actually taught by it, namely, the way of life, which is Christ, and the way of death, which is merited by sin, and that this is a fixed and unchangeable reality, contrary to different kinds of Universalist teachings.

 

[Cockcrow]

To say "just a parable" is disrespectful seeing that Jesus always spoke in parables except on special occasions. Of course Luke 16:19-31, is a parable, in the context of one tittle not failing in the Law. Luke 17:1-4, is not a parable

a parable about what?

 

[sparow]

a parable about what?

You have asked the wrong question.

It is in Ps 78:2 where what Jesus did is defined and prophesied. The Hebrew word rendered "parable" can also mean, a sense of superiority in mental action, a forceful metaphoric general truth, a smile and/or a proverb. If you go with the English language meaning of parable you will likely end up in the wrong place.

 

[sparow]

A parable has a specific format something unknown/not understood is explained by comparison with something known/understood. The story of Lazarus and the rich man does not have such a comparison. It might be some other figure of speech but it is not a parable. The ECF who quoted/referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.

First Apology of Justin Martyr. Chap. XXXIV. — Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and Are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning.​

The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form215 [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased, — in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states (Luk_16:19, etc.) that Dives knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him — [Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive216 the preaching of Him who was217 to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist, that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man​

Clement of Alexander Chap. Book XI.​

There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the hay. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.​

Tertullian On Idolatry Chap XIII Thus, too, Eleazar[Lazarus] in Hades,(attaining refreshment in Abraham’s bosom) and the rich man, (on the other hand, set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution, their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good.​

The Epistles of Cyprian. Epistle LIV 3. Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Eleazar[Lazarus], then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.​

I find this interesting, but I do not agree. The reading should have begun with Luke 16:14, Jesus is talking to Pharisees; the parallel is between the Pharisees and the rich man and how the Pharisees treated the righteous poor with how Lazarus was treated. Of course, the parable is rich in symbolic language, but not for the purpose of supporting spiritualism.

 

[sparow]

I recently had a question about this, so I figured I'd re-share some things:

First of all, to believe that Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable is not a controversial understanding. You can see this in how the ESV is translated with added headers, for example. That is, the translators have added headers such as "The Parable of the Prodigal Son" and "The Parable of the Dishonest Manager", but Luke 16:19-31 is simply referred to as "The Rich Man and Lazarus".

However, looking at the actual Biblical text, neither Luke, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, nor Christ, tell us whether or not the story of the rich man and Lazarus was an actual event or a parable. I'm of the view, like you, that this may be a historical account, or based on real people, and not a parable. But either way, this has no bearing on what is actually taught in it. So even if it is a parable, we do not have the liberty to lazily dismiss what is taught by it as a "mere parable", and we are quite right to correct those who do.

The name "Lazarus" means something like "God a help", "helped by God", or "one whom God helps". So this could be a real person, and/or it could be a name used by our Lord to signify that he is one of God's people, one who believes in Him, one who is helped by God despite his miserable status. Perhaps another thing to note is that Lazarus' name is mentioned whereas the rich man's name is not, and I think we can understand that in light of those whose names are written in heaven, that is believers, and those whose names are blotted out, that is unbelievers.

So, my conclusion would be this: Let's not be contentious about whether Luke 16:19-31 is a parable, a historical record, or involves historical figures, but instead fix our attention on what is actually taught by it, namely, the way of life, which is Christ, and the way of death, which is merited by sin, and that this is a fixed and unchangeable reality, contrary to different kinds of Universalist teachings.

I think debates like this are useful, People cannot simply be told they have to wrestle with things and reach their own conclusions.

 

[Der Alte]

I find this interesting, but I do not agree. The reading should have begun with Luke 16:14, Jesus is talking to Pharisees; the parallel is between the Pharisees and the rich man and how the Pharisees treated the righteous poor with how Lazarus was treated. Of course, the parable is rich in symbolic language, but not for the purpose of supporting spiritualism.

I said nothing about spiritualism. The Greek word parabole' from which "parable" is derived means to lay/throw beside. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus what is laid/thrown beside what? I think all the unquestioned "parables" have a comparison e.g. "'X' is like unto 'Y.'" FYI you indicated two knowns not a known and an unknown.
The rich man violated a specific commandment.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8​

(7) If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:​

(8) But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.​

Lazarus did not even get the crumbs from the rich man's table. And as I said all the ECF who quoted/referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.

παραβολή, ῆς, ἡ (παραβάλλω; Pla., Isocr.+; ins, pap, LXX; En; TestSol 20:4; Just.; Mel., P.—JWackernagel, Parabola: IndogF 31, 1912/13, 262–67)​

① someth. that serves as a model or example pointing beyond itself for later realization, type, figure παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα a symbol (pointing) to the present age Hb 9:9. ἐν παραβολῇ as a type (of the violent death and of the resurrection of Christ) 11:19. λέγει ὁ προφήτης παραβολὴν κυρίου B 6:10, where the mng. may be the prophet is uttering a parable of the Lord (Goodsp.), or the prophet speaks of the Lord in figurative language (Kleist), or the prophet speaks in figurative language given him by the Lord. W. αἴνιγμα PtK 4 p. 15, 31. The things of the present or future cannot be understood by the ordinary Christian διὰ τὸ ἐν παραβολαῖς κεῖσθαι because they are expressed in figures B 17:2.​

② a narrative or saying of varying length, designed to illustrate a truth especially through comparison or simile, comparison, illustration, parable, proverb, maxim.​

ⓐ in the synoptics the word refers to a variety of illustrative formulations in the teaching of Jesus (in Mt 17 times, in Mk 13 times, in Lk 18 times; cp. Euclides [400 B.C.] who, acc. to Diog. L. 2, 107, rejected ὁ διὰ παραβολῆς λόγος; Aristot., Rhet. 2, 20, 2ff; Περὶ ὕψους 37; Vi. Aesopi II p. 307, 15 Eb.; Biogr. p. 87 Ὁμήρου παραβολαί; Philo, Conf. Lingu. 99; Jos., Ant. 8, 44. The Gk. OT also used παραβολή for various words and expressions that involve comparison, including riddles [s. Jülicher below: I2 32–40].—En 1:2; 3. Cp. π. κυριακαί Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv I 67, 1]). For prob. OT influence on the use of comparison in narrative s. Ezk 17. λέγειν, εἰπεῖν παραβολήν: Lk 13:6; 16:19 D; 19:11 (begins the longest ‘parable’ in the synoptics: 17 verses). τινί to someone 4:23 (the briefest ‘parable’: 3 words; here and in the next passage π.=proverb, quoted by Jesus); 6:39; 18:1; 21:29. πρός τινα to someone 5:36; 12:16, 41; 14:7; 15:3; 18:9; 20:9; with reference to someone Mk 12:12; Lk 20:19. παραβολὴν λαλεῖν τινι Mt 13:33. παραβολὴν παρατιθέναι τινί put a parable before someone vss. 24, 31. τελεῖν τὰς παραβολάς finish the parables vs. 53. διασαφεῖν (v.l. φράζειν) τινι τὴν παραβολήν vs. 36. φράζειν τινὶ τὴν παρ. explain the parable 15:15. ἀκούειν Mt 13:18; 21:33, 45. γνῶναι and εἰδέναι understand Mk 4:13b et al. μαθεῖν τὴν παρ. ἀπό τινος learn the parable from someth. Mt 24:32; Mk 13:28. (ἐπ)ἐρωτᾶν τινα τὴν παρ. ask someone the mng. of the parable Mk 7:17 (in ref. to vs. 15); cp. 4:10. Also ἐπερωτᾶν τινα περὶ τῆς παρ. 7:17 v.l.; ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν τίς εἴη ἡ παρ. they asked him what the parable meant Lk 8:9; the answer to it: ἔστιν δὲ αὕτη ἡ παρ. but the parable means this vs. 11.—παραβολαῖς λαλεῖν τινί τι Mk 4:33. W. the gen. of that which forms the subj. of the parable ἡ παρ. τοῦ σπείραντος Mt 13:18. τῶν ζιζανίων vs. 36 (cp. ἡ περὶ τοῦ … τελώνου παρ. Orig., C. Cels. 3, 64, 11).—W. a prep.: εἶπεν διὰ παραβολῆς Lk 8:4 (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 5, 11).—χωρὶς παραβολῆς οὐδὲν ἐλάλει αὐτοῖς Mt 13:34b; Mk 4:34.—Mostly ἐν: τιθέναι τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν παραβολῇ present the Reign of God in a parable vs. 30. ἐν παραβολαῖς λαλεῖν τινι Mt 13:10, 13; Mk 12:1. ἐν παραβολαῖς λέγειν τινί Mt 22:1; Mk 3:23. λαλεῖν τινί τι ἐν παραβολαῖς Mt 13:3, 34a. διδάσκειν τινά τι ἐν παραβολαῖς Mk 4:2. ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου Mt 13:35 (Ps 77:2). γίνεταί τινί τι ἐν παραβολαῖς someth. comes to someone in the form of parables Mk 4:11; cp. Lk 8:10. According to Eus. (3, 39, 11), Papias presented some unusual parables of the Savior, i.e. ascribed to Jesus: Papias (2:11).—AJülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu I2 1899; II 1899 [the older lit. is given here I 203–322]; GHeinrici, RE VI 688–703, XXIII 561f; CBugge, Die Hauptparabeln Jesu 1903; PFiebig, Altjüdische Gleichnisse und d. Gleichnisse Jesu 1904, D. Gleichnisse Jesu im Lichte der rabb. Gleich. 1912, D. Erzählungsstil der Ev. 1925; LFonck, Die Parabeln des Herrn3 1909 (w. much lit. on the individual parables), The Parables of the Gospel3 1918; JKögel, BFCT XIX 6, 1915; MMeinertz, Die Gleichnisse Jesu 1916; 4th ed. ’48; HWeinel, Die Gleichnisse Jesu5 1929; RBultmann, D. Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition2 ’31, 179–222; MDibelius, D. Formgeschichte des Ev.2 33; EBuonaiuti, Le parabole di Gesù: Religio 10–13, ’34–37; WOesterly, The Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background ’36; EWechssler, Hellas im Ev. ’36, 267–85; CDodd, The Parables of the Kgdm.3 ’36; BSmith, The Par. of the Syn. Gosp. ’37; WMichaelis, Es ging e. Sämann aus. zu säen ’38; OPiper, The Understanding of the Syn. Par.: EvQ 14, ’42, 42–53; CMasson, Les Paraboles de Marc IV ’45; JJeremias, D. Gleichn. Jesu4 ’56 (Eng. tr. ’55); ELinnemann, Jesus of the Parables, tr. JSturdy, ’66; AWeiser, D. Knechtsgleichnisse der synopt. Evv. ’71; JKingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Mt 13, ’69; FDanker, Fresh Persp. on Mt, CTM 41, ’70, 478–90; JKingsbury, ibid. 42, ’71, 579–96; TManson, The Teaching of Jesus, ’55, 57–86; JSider, Biblica 62, ’81, 453–70 (synoptists); ECuvillier, Le concept de ΠΑΡΑΒΟΛΗ dans le second évangile ’93.​

ⓑ Apart fr. the Syn. gospels, παρ. is found in our lit. freq. in Hermas (as heading: Hs 1:1; 2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1; [6:1; 7:1; 8:1]) but not independently of the synoptic tradition. Hermas uses παρ. only once to designate a real illustrative (double) parable, in m 11:18. Elsewh παρ. is for Hermas an enigmatic presentation that is somet. seen in a vision, somet. expressed in words, but in any case is in need of detailed interpretation: w. gen. of content (s. a above) τοῦ πύργου about the tower Hv 3, 3, 2. τοῦ ἀγροῦ about the field Hs 5, 4, 1. τῶν ὀρέων 9, 29, 4. δηλοῦν τὴν παραβολήν 5, 4, 1a. παρ. ἐστιν ταῦτα 5, 4, 1b. ἀκούειν τὴν παραβολήν v 3, 3, 2; 3, 12, 1; Hs 5, 2, 1. παραβολὰς λαλεῖν τινι 5, 4, 2a. τὰ ῥήματα τὰ λεγόμενα διὰ παραβολῶν 5, 4, 3b; γράφειν τὰς παρ. v 5:5f; Hs 9, 1, 1; συνιέναι τὰς παρ. m 10, 1, 3. γινώσκειν Hs 5, 3, 1a; 9, 5, 5. νοεῖν m 10, 1, 4; Hs 5, 3, 1b. ἐπιλύειν τινὶ παρ. 5, 3, 1c; 5, 4, 2b; 3a. συντελεῖν 9, 29, 4. ἡ ἐπίλυσις τῆς παρ. explanation, interpretation of the parable 5, 6, 8; αἱ ἐπιλύσεις τῶν παρ. 5, 5, 1. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς δούλου τρόπον κεῖται ἐν τῇ παρ. the Son of God appears in the parable as a slave 5, 5, 5. ἡ παρ. εἰς τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ κεῖται the par. refers to the slaves of God 2:4.—S. also the headings to the various parts of the third division of Hermas (the Parables) and on Hermas gener. s. Jülicher, op. cit. I 204–209.—εἰ δὲ δεῖ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν σπερμάτων μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν παρ. but if we are not to draw our comparison from the (action of) the seeds AcPlCor 2:28.—BScott, Profiles of Jesus, Parables: The Fourth R 10, ’97, 3–14.—B. 1262. DELG s.v. βάλλω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 759–760.​

 

[sparow]

I said nothing about spiritualism. The Greek word parabole' from which "parable" is derived means to lay/throw beside. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus what is laid/thrown beside what? I think all the unquestioned "parables" have a comparison e.g. "'X' is like unto 'Y.'" FYI you indicated two knowns not a known and an unknown.
The rich man violated a specific commandment.

Deuteronomy 15:7-8​

(7) If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother:​

(8) But thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth.​

Lazarus did not even get the crumbs from the rich man's table. And as I said all the ECF who quoted/referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.

παραβολή, ῆς, ἡ (παραβάλλω; Pla., Isocr.+; ins, pap, LXX; En; TestSol 20:4; Just.; Mel., P.—JWackernagel, Parabola: IndogF 31, 1912/13, 262–67)​

① someth. that serves as a model or example pointing beyond itself for later realization, type, figure παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα a symbol (pointing) to the present age Hb 9:9. ἐν παραβολῇ as a type (of the violent death and of the resurrection of Christ) 11:19. λέγει ὁ προφήτης παραβολὴν κυρίου B 6:10, where the mng. may be the prophet is uttering a parable of the Lord (Goodsp.), or the prophet speaks of the Lord in figurative language (Kleist), or the prophet speaks in figurative language given him by the Lord. W. αἴνιγμα PtK 4 p. 15, 31. The things of the present or future cannot be understood by the ordinary Christian διὰ τὸ ἐν παραβολαῖς κεῖσθαι because they are expressed in figures B 17:2.​

② a narrative or saying of varying length, designed to illustrate a truth especially through comparison or simile, comparison, illustration, parable, proverb, maxim.​

ⓐ in the synoptics the word refers to a variety of illustrative formulations in the teaching of Jesus (in Mt 17 times, in Mk 13 times, in Lk 18 times; cp. Euclides [400 B.C.] who, acc. to Diog. L. 2, 107, rejected ὁ διὰ παραβολῆς λόγος; Aristot., Rhet. 2, 20, 2ff; Περὶ ὕψους 37; Vi. Aesopi II p. 307, 15 Eb.; Biogr. p. 87 Ὁμήρου παραβολαί; Philo, Conf. Lingu. 99; Jos., Ant. 8, 44. The Gk. OT also used παραβολή for various words and expressions that involve comparison, including riddles [s. Jülicher below: I2 32–40].—En 1:2; 3. Cp. π. κυριακαί Iren. 1, 8, 1 [Harv I 67, 1]). For prob. OT influence on the use of comparison in narrative s. Ezk 17. λέγειν, εἰπεῖν παραβολήν: Lk 13:6; 16:19 D; 19:11 (begins the longest ‘parable’ in the synoptics: 17 verses). τινί to someone 4:23 (the briefest ‘parable’: 3 words; here and in the next passage π.=proverb, quoted by Jesus); 6:39; 18:1; 21:29. πρός τινα to someone 5:36; 12:16, 41; 14:7; 15:3; 18:9; 20:9; with reference to someone Mk 12:12; Lk 20:19. παραβολὴν λαλεῖν τινι Mt 13:33. παραβολὴν παρατιθέναι τινί put a parable before someone vss. 24, 31. τελεῖν τὰς παραβολάς finish the parables vs. 53. διασαφεῖν (v.l. φράζειν) τινι τὴν παραβολήν vs. 36. φράζειν τινὶ τὴν παρ. explain the parable 15:15. ἀκούειν Mt 13:18; 21:33, 45. γνῶναι and εἰδέναι understand Mk 4:13b et al. μαθεῖν τὴν παρ. ἀπό τινος learn the parable from someth. Mt 24:32; Mk 13:28. (ἐπ)ἐρωτᾶν τινα τὴν παρ. ask someone the mng. of the parable Mk 7:17 (in ref. to vs. 15); cp. 4:10. Also ἐπερωτᾶν τινα περὶ τῆς παρ. 7:17 v.l.; ἐπηρώτων αὐτὸν τίς εἴη ἡ παρ. they asked him what the parable meant Lk 8:9; the answer to it: ἔστιν δὲ αὕτη ἡ παρ. but the parable means this vs. 11.—παραβολαῖς λαλεῖν τινί τι Mk 4:33. W. the gen. of that which forms the subj. of the parable ἡ παρ. τοῦ σπείραντος Mt 13:18. τῶν ζιζανίων vs. 36 (cp. ἡ περὶ τοῦ … τελώνου παρ. Orig., C. Cels. 3, 64, 11).—W. a prep.: εἶπεν διὰ παραβολῆς Lk 8:4 (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 5, 11).—χωρὶς παραβολῆς οὐδὲν ἐλάλει αὐτοῖς Mt 13:34b; Mk 4:34.—Mostly ἐν: τιθέναι τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν παραβολῇ present the Reign of God in a parable vs. 30. ἐν παραβολαῖς λαλεῖν τινι Mt 13:10, 13; Mk 12:1. ἐν παραβολαῖς λέγειν τινί Mt 22:1; Mk 3:23. λαλεῖν τινί τι ἐν παραβολαῖς Mt 13:3, 34a. διδάσκειν τινά τι ἐν παραβολαῖς Mk 4:2. ἀνοίξω ἐν παραβολαῖς τὸ στόμα μου Mt 13:35 (Ps 77:2). γίνεταί τινί τι ἐν παραβολαῖς someth. comes to someone in the form of parables Mk 4:11; cp. Lk 8:10. According to Eus. (3, 39, 11), Papias presented some unusual parables of the Savior, i.e. ascribed to Jesus: Papias (2:11).—AJülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu I2 1899; II 1899 [the older lit. is given here I 203–322]; GHeinrici, RE VI 688–703, XXIII 561f; CBugge, Die Hauptparabeln Jesu 1903; PFiebig, Altjüdische Gleichnisse und d. Gleichnisse Jesu 1904, D. Gleichnisse Jesu im Lichte der rabb. Gleich. 1912, D. Erzählungsstil der Ev. 1925; LFonck, Die Parabeln des Herrn3 1909 (w. much lit. on the individual parables), The Parables of the Gospel3 1918; JKögel, BFCT XIX 6, 1915; MMeinertz, Die Gleichnisse Jesu 1916; 4th ed. ’48; HWeinel, Die Gleichnisse Jesu5 1929; RBultmann, D. Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition2 ’31, 179–222; MDibelius, D. Formgeschichte des Ev.2 33; EBuonaiuti, Le parabole di Gesù: Religio 10–13, ’34–37; WOesterly, The Gospel Parables in the Light of Their Jewish Background ’36; EWechssler, Hellas im Ev. ’36, 267–85; CDodd, The Parables of the Kgdm.3 ’36; BSmith, The Par. of the Syn. Gosp. ’37; WMichaelis, Es ging e. Sämann aus. zu säen ’38; OPiper, The Understanding of the Syn. Par.: EvQ 14, ’42, 42–53; CMasson, Les Paraboles de Marc IV ’45; JJeremias, D. Gleichn. Jesu4 ’56 (Eng. tr. ’55); ELinnemann, Jesus of the Parables, tr. JSturdy, ’66; AWeiser, D. Knechtsgleichnisse der synopt. Evv. ’71; JKingsbury, The Parables of Jesus in Mt 13, ’69; FDanker, Fresh Persp. on Mt, CTM 41, ’70, 478–90; JKingsbury, ibid. 42, ’71, 579–96; TManson, The Teaching of Jesus, ’55, 57–86; JSider, Biblica 62, ’81, 453–70 (synoptists); ECuvillier, Le concept de ΠΑΡΑΒΟΛΗ dans le second évangile ’93.​

ⓑ Apart fr. the Syn. gospels, παρ. is found in our lit. freq. in Hermas (as heading: Hs 1:1; 2:1; 3:1; 4:1; 5:1; [6:1; 7:1; 8:1]) but not independently of the synoptic tradition. Hermas uses παρ. only once to designate a real illustrative (double) parable, in m 11:18. Elsewh παρ. is for Hermas an enigmatic presentation that is somet. seen in a vision, somet. expressed in words, but in any case is in need of detailed interpretation: w. gen. of content (s. a above) τοῦ πύργου about the tower Hv 3, 3, 2. τοῦ ἀγροῦ about the field Hs 5, 4, 1. τῶν ὀρέων 9, 29, 4. δηλοῦν τὴν παραβολήν 5, 4, 1a. παρ. ἐστιν ταῦτα 5, 4, 1b. ἀκούειν τὴν παραβολήν v 3, 3, 2; 3, 12, 1; Hs 5, 2, 1. παραβολὰς λαλεῖν τινι 5, 4, 2a. τὰ ῥήματα τὰ λεγόμενα διὰ παραβολῶν 5, 4, 3b; γράφειν τὰς παρ. v 5:5f; Hs 9, 1, 1; συνιέναι τὰς παρ. m 10, 1, 3. γινώσκειν Hs 5, 3, 1a; 9, 5, 5. νοεῖν m 10, 1, 4; Hs 5, 3, 1b. ἐπιλύειν τινὶ παρ. 5, 3, 1c; 5, 4, 2b; 3a. συντελεῖν 9, 29, 4. ἡ ἐπίλυσις τῆς παρ. explanation, interpretation of the parable 5, 6, 8; αἱ ἐπιλύσεις τῶν παρ. 5, 5, 1. ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ εἰς δούλου τρόπον κεῖται ἐν τῇ παρ. the Son of God appears in the parable as a slave 5, 5, 5. ἡ παρ. εἰς τοὺς δούλους τοῦ θεοῦ κεῖται the par. refers to the slaves of God 2:4.—S. also the headings to the various parts of the third division of Hermas (the Parables) and on Hermas gener. s. Jülicher, op. cit. I 204–209.—εἰ δὲ δεῖ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν σπερμάτων μὴ ποιεῖσθαι τὴν παρ. but if we are not to draw our comparison from the (action of) the seeds AcPlCor 2:28.—BScott, Profiles of Jesus, Parables: The Fourth R 10, ’97, 3–14.—B. 1262. DELG s.v. βάλλω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.​

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 759–760.​

You are trying to dazzle me with science, it won't work. You are making something simple complicated. in the context of, not a tittle can be changed in the Law, Jesus first accuses the Pharisees, using parables, of adultery and then of failing Deuteronomy 15:7-8.

 

[Der Alte]

You are trying to dazzle me with science, it won't work. You are making something simple complicated. in the context of, not a tittle can be changed in the Law, Jesus first accuses the Pharisees, using parables, of adultery and then of failing Deuteronomy 15:7-8.

That Jesus did at times employ parables does not conclusively show that the story of Lazarus and the rich man was a parable. As I stated above, post #4, the 4 ECF who quoted/referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.
A parable has a specific format something unknown/not understood is explained by comparing it to something known/understood. Lazarus and the rich man does not have that comparison. It might be some other figure of speech but it ain't no parable. Jesus did NOT accuse the Pharisees of violating Deu 15:7-8

 

[sparow]

That Jesus did at times employ parables does not conclusively show that the story of Lazarus and the rich man was a parable. As I stated above, post #4, the 4 ECF who quoted/referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it factual.
A parable has a specific format something unknown/not understood is explained by comparing it to something known/understood. Lazarus and the rich man does not have that comparison. It might be some other figure of speech but it ain't no parable. Jesus did NOT accuse the Pharisees of violating Deu 15:7-8

You have not been listening, the word parable only works sometimes. The word of God, or God, is not governed by English grammar. In Matt. 13, Jesus said that he only speaks literally or factually when He calls His apostles to one side, and talks privately to them, otherwise He speaks as prophesy demands.

Prophesy does not require Jesus always use fictional stories; whether the (common) story is factual or not is irrelevant, contained in the story is judgement.

 

[Der Alte]

You have not been listening, the word parable only works sometimes. The word of God, or God, is not governed by English grammar. In Matt. 13, Jesus said that he only speaks literally or factually when He calls His apostles to one side, and talks privately to them, otherwise He speaks as prophesy demands.

You aren't listening. I said nothing about English grammar. Parable is a Greek figure of speech and to be a parable it must have a specific format, i.e. something not known/understood is explained by comparing to something that is known/understood. I also said the Lazarus/rich man story might be some other figure of speech but it is not a parable. I also quoted 4 ECF who quoted/referred to the Lazarus/rich man story who considered it factual.

Prophesy does not require Jesus always use fictional stories; whether the (common) story is factual or not is irrelevant, contained in the story is judgement.

And this speculation is relevant how?

 

[sparow]

You aren't listening. I said nothing about English grammar. Parable is a Greek figure of speech and to be a parable it must have a specific format, i.e. something not known/understood is explained by comparing to something that is known/understood. I also said the Lazarus/rich man story might be some other figure of speech but it is not a parable. I also quoted 4 ECF who quoted/referred to the Lazarus/rich man story who considered it factual.


And this speculation is relevant how?

What a strange person you are. I assume our communication failure to your Baptist education.

 

[Der Alte]

What a strange person you are. I assume our communication failure to your Baptist education.

And you attribute your communication failure to what? I usually support what I say with credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence. I cannot say the same for you.

 

[sparow]

And you attribute your communication failure to what? I usually support what I say with credible, verifiable, historical etc. evidence. I cannot say the same for you.

You talk through your hat, you articulate nonsense to the nth degree, and fake dismay when I do not understand.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Luke 16:19-31 is not a parable of Jesus like most people falsely believe, it is sickening how mainstream this false narrative of "its just a parable" when the reality is that it is actually a true story. Jesus never named real names in Parables, and in Luke 16:19-31 he names multiple real people 1. a certain rich man 2. Lazarus the beggar 3. Abraham 4. Moses 5. The Prophets. Jesus clearly was teaching about the reality of eternal conscious torment in hell.
Luke 16:19-31

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 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 tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Multiple things we learn from this true story that Jesus gives, 1. Hell is immediate after last breath, 2. Hell is a real place of torment 3. You will feel pain, punishment in hell. 3. You will have full memory in hell 4. Once you're in hell it is too late (nothing can be done for you, there is no salvation in hell) 5. People who go to hell deserve to go there (the rich man didn't argue or protest with Abraham about his own salvation, he simply was begging for Abraham to send Lazarus back to warn his brothers, and also begging for water, relief from his torment) 6. People preaching The word of God bible (Moses and prophets) is what saves people, not physical signs, or miracles.

Jesus obviously tells this true story to warn us of the reality of hell. one can not simply dismiss this as "just a parable" when the Lord Jesus Christ was so specific here. Also there are some weird people who teach that "Abraham's bosom" is actually a place, or some good part of hell, but that is not biblical. Abrahams bosom is a body part, not a location.

I agree with you that Lazarus and the Richman story is talking about a story of the afterlife in hell.
I disagree that you think there is no Paradise or Abraham’s Bosom (A place), though. Where did Lazarus and Abraham go?

 

[Der Alte]

You talk through your hat, you articulate nonsense to the nth degree, and fake dismay when I do not understand.

Your admitted failure to comprehend my posts do not indicate any failure on my part.