L
In this parable Jesus continues the lesson set forth in the parable of the Dishonest Steward (ch. 16:1–12), that the use made of the opportunities of the present life determines future destiny
That parable had been addressed particularly to the disciples (see on v. 1), but in v. 9 Jesus had turned from the disciples to the Pharisees present (see on v. 9). The Pharisees refused to accept Jesus’ teachings on stewardship and sneered at Him (see v. 14). Jesus then pointed out that they might be honored by men, but that God read their hearts like an open book (see on v. 15). They had had sufficient light; they had long enjoyed the instruction of “the law and the prophets,” and since the ministry of John the added light of the gospel had been theirs (see on v. 16). In vs. 17, 18 Jesus affirms that the principles set forth in “the law” are immutable—God has not changed—and gives an example of this sublime truth. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is then given to show that destiny is decided in this present life by the use made of its privileges and opportunities
That parable had been addressed particularly to the disciples (see on v. 1), but in v. 9 Jesus had turned from the disciples to the Pharisees present (see on v. 9). The Pharisees refused to accept Jesus’ teachings on stewardship and sneered at Him (see v. 14). Jesus then pointed out that they might be honored by men, but that God read their hearts like an open book (see on v. 15). They had had sufficient light; they had long enjoyed the instruction of “the law and the prophets,” and since the ministry of John the added light of the gospel had been theirs (see on v. 16). In vs. 17, 18 Jesus affirms that the principles set forth in “the law” are immutable—God has not changed—and gives an example of this sublime truth. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is then given to show that destiny is decided in this present life by the use made of its privileges and opportunities
The parable consists of two scenes, one representing this life (vs. 19–22), and another the next (vs. 23–31). The parable of the Dishonest Steward approached the problem from the positive point of view, that is, from the point of view of one who did make preparations for the future. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus approaches the same problem from the negative point of view, that is, from the point of view of one who failed to make such preparation. The rich man erred in thinking that salvation is based on Abrahamic descent rather than upon character ( Eze. 18).
Like all other parables, that of the Rich Man and Lazarus must be interpreted in harmony with its context and with the general tenor of Scripture. One of the most important principles of interpretation is that each parable was designed to teach one fundamental truth, and that the details of the parable need not necessarily have significance in themselves, except as “props” for the story.
In other words, the details of a parable must not be pressed as having a literal meaning in terms of spiritual truth unless the context makes clear that such a meaning is intended. Out of this principle grows another—that it is not wise to use the details of a parable to teach doctrine. Only the fundamental teaching of a parable as clearly set forth in its context and confirmed by the general tenor of Scripture, together with details explained in the context itself, may legitimately be considered a basis for doctrine.
In other words, the details of a parable must not be pressed as having a literal meaning in terms of spiritual truth unless the context makes clear that such a meaning is intended. Out of this principle grows another—that it is not wise to use the details of a parable to teach doctrine. Only the fundamental teaching of a parable as clearly set forth in its context and confirmed by the general tenor of Scripture, together with details explained in the context itself, may legitimately be considered a basis for doctrine.
.