>>10495561Luke 16:19-31 (the Rich Man and Lazarus) is a parable. Jesus is in the midst of teaching five parables, beginning in 15:3 with the parable of the lost sheep. Following that are the parables of the lost coin, the prodigal son, the unjust administrator, and the Rich Man and Lazarus. The purpose of these parables is to teach the Pharisees a lesson about how they treat publicans and sinners. If you take the Rich Man parable literally (which apparently you do), you have to throw out everything the rest of the scriptures have to say about death. But not only that.
Is Lazarus literally sitting on the bosom on Abraham? Why not, if this is literal? In the parable, the Rich Man is damned because he was rich and wore fine things. Lazarus is sitting on Abraham’s chest simply because he got bad things in this life. Think about this. There is nothing here about the gospel, nothing about faith. If you’re going to make this parable the criteria for either being consciously tormented in flame or sitting on Abraham’s chest for eternity, then you’re going to have to base salvation on wealth, not faith. Well? What is the criteria for salvation in this context? Physical disadvantage only; there is nothing about faith here. So lets all wear grubby clothes and get dogs to lick our cold sores. We’ll be on our way!
I’m curious. Since this is a five-fold parable, beginning in chapter 15, why don’t you make the Prodigal Son in 15:11-32 literal? At the end of the parable, the father says, "This, my son, was dead." Why don’t you take that death literally? Using your system of interpreting parables literally, you can use the parable of the prodigal son to prove that, after people die, they go off to a far country, spend all their money on whores and alcohol, then end up in a pig sty eating indigestible corn. Ross, I don’t think you want to do this.
