The Rich Man and Lazarus: Figuratively, Not Falsely

“For only $19.95 get your own one-of-a-kind stainless steel gnat-strainer while they last. Order now and we’ll include a free copy of the Complete Camel Cookbook- delicious dromedary dishes from the Middle East…” 

Christ commonly spoke in a colorful satirical manner that would enrage eyebrows and tickle snickers at the same time, such as this classic rebuke: “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” This was not an actual, factual record of vision-impaired, gnat-straining camel-eaters in Ripley’s Believe It or Not. It was not physically literal at all. They were not physically blind, and, as far as we know, they didn’t even eat camels a bite at a time. 

But was it true? Absolutely! They were spiritually straining a “gnat” by tithing mint, anise, and cumin, while omitting the weightier matters of the law, which was like swallowing a camel.

Jesus spoke figuratively, not falsely. Thus He spoke truly, though not literally. This was how Jesus typically talked - what He said is true, but it was expressed in illustrative figures that were to be understood spiritually, not literally. 

In these cases, it was not literal facts, but it was spiritual realities. This understanding of our Lord’s standard method of speaking lays a foundation on how we should interpret the story of the rich man and Lazarus. He spoke figuratively, not literally, but He spoke truly, not falsely.  

There is no difficulty in understanding the rich, deep meanings in such metaphorical maxims. Christ’s proclivity of using figurative word pictures enhanced His point in a concise form. A picture is worth a thousand words, and these figures of speech immediately paint a picture. Their utter ridiculousness enhances their effectiveness. 

Straining gnats and eating camels, wolves in sheep’s clothing and pearls before swine, though literal absurdities, are such easily understood figures of speech that the very phrases have been permanently engrafted into our vocabulary as definitive of what they picture. 

There are many examples:    

Matthew (most are repeated in Mark and/or Luke)

3:12 fan is in his hand; gather wheat; burn up chaff

5:13 ye are the salt of the earth

5:14 ye are the light of the world

5:35 earth is his footstool

6:22 light of the body is the eye

7:3 mote/beam in eye

7:6 pearls before swine

7:13 strait/broad gate; wide/narrow way

7:15 wolves in sheep’s clothing

10:16 wise as serpents; harmless as doves

11:7 reed shaken with the wind

11:29 take my yoke upon you

16:6 leaven of the Pharisees

16:18 upon this rock I will build

16:19 the keys of the kingdom

17:20 faith as a grain of a mustard seed

20:22 the cup that I drink of

21:13 den of thieves 

23:4 bind heavy burdens… on men’s shoulders

23:25 clean the outside of the cup

23:27 whited sepulchres full of dead men’s bones

23:33 serpents; generation of vipers

25:33 the sheep… the goats

26:28 this is my blood

Luke

9:23 take up his cross daily

9:62 hand to the plough

10:3 lambs among wolves

13:32 go tell that fox (Herod)

20:17 rejected stone becomes cornerstone

20:18 stone grinds him to powder

John 

2:19 destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up

3:7 ye must be born again

4:14 the water that I shall give him

4:32 meat to eat ye know not of

4:35 fields white unto harvest

5:35 a burning and shining light

6:35 I am the bread of life

10:7 I am the door of the sheep

10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep  

15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches 

This is not an exhaustive list, but is more than enough to showcase the picturesque language of the roving storyteller. What they all have in common is that none are literal, but all are true. 

Wolves don’t really walk around in sheep’s clothing. Ah, but they do. Herod wasn’t actually a fox. Ah, but he was. 

If in these terse statements Christ spoke figuratively, but not falsely, then it should not be considered remarkable if He also told figurative stories to express spiritual realities. Again, He would be speaking truly, though not literally- figuratively, not falsely!

Here are some examples:

The Parable of the Marriage Feast - Matthew 22:1-14

Was this an actual, factual account? Was it literal? Though some of the details may be theoretically possible, most are not even remotely practical or probable?  

A king invited, but no one bidden would come? Not even one? (v. 3)

The king tried to entice them with rich food? Really? (v. 4)

Those invited made light of it, and went their ways? (v. 5)

Others slew the servants who invited them? No way! (v. 6)

The king sent armies to destroy the murderers, and burned up their city? (v. 7)

The king said go bid as many as ye find? (v. 9)

Man with no wedding garment was speechless? (v. 12)

The same man was bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness? (v. 13)

I don’t believe any of Christ’s hearers understood this to be a newspaper account. Yes, it was “a certain king,” but Jesus said, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which made a marriage for his son.” He indeed spoke truly, not falsely, but our Lord spoke figuratively, not literally. 

The parable painted a picture worth a thousand words. Literally ridiculous, but spiritually real: the King is God the Father, Christ is the Son, and the servants are the prophets. Thus the story is absolutely true, but a spiritual truth was conveyed, not a headline news story. With that understanding we know that our Lord told a figurative story to express clear spiritual realities. 

The Parable of the Ten Virgins - Matt. 25:1-13

Would a literal bridegroom marry ten at a time?  

Would virgins leave at midnight to go buy oil?

Would the bridegroom not know five of the ten he had planned to marry?

There is no problem with this story when it is understood as a figurative means of expressing spiritual realities, but it would surely be quite outlandish if it were a literal account.  

The Two Debtors - Matthew 18:22-35

Consider also the extreme disparity in the debts in the story of the king taking account of his servants. The debtor owed the king the astronomical equivalent of $52,800,000 while being owed by “one of his fellow servants” a paltry $44.00. The extreme of the difference in the debts would seem overly exaggerated if it was to be understood literally. But when understood figuratively it wonderfully and truly expresses the spiritual reality of how we should freely forgive our fellow servants when God has so graciously forgiven us!  

Speaking figuratively was not the exception in Christ’s discourses. It was common, predominant even. Even so with illustrative stories: “All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them” (Matthew 13:34). That’s important to remember as we consider the rich man and Lazarus.  

Did Christ’s listeners understand that they were figurative accounts used to picture a point or illustrate a spiritual reality? Indeed they did. In another story that would not be considered practically possible in a literal sense, yet verily happened, is the story of the householder who planted a vineyard and sent servants to the husbandmen to receive the fruits of it (Matthew 21:33-45).  

“The husbandmen took the servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.” Finally, the householder sends his own beloved son whom the husbandmen kill. Then Christ referred to the prophecy in Psalm 118:22 of the figure of the rejected stone becoming the head of the corner. “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.” They themselves, the sons of their fathers who had killed the prophets, were now seeking to kill the Son.  

No one doubted the truthfulness of Christ’s words or the veracity of the account. If it were meant to be literal, someone could have asked, “When did that happen? In what city? What is the name of the householder? How come we never heard the news of such an occurrence?” 

No one ventured such investigative queries, for they perceived that he spake of them. They were the husbandmen. The story painted a picture. The picture made the point. They got the point. Likewise with the covetous Pharisees who derided Christ after He rebuked them about mammon. They would have perceived that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was directed at them. Each of them were the rich man.  

Again, this was not exceptional, but normative in Christ’s manner of communicating. After telling the story of the sower, Jesus said, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 13:9). They certainly heard the particular details of the story with their physical ears, but did they have the spiritual discernment to understand it’s real meaning?

“And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?” (13:10). They intuitively knew what we are told by the inspiration of the Spirit: “he spake many things unto them in parables” (13:3). There is no reason to believe the story of the rich man and Lazarus was an exception. 

When Christ told the parable of the good seed and the tares, the disciples readily understood it’s figurative and allegorical nature. “Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field” (Matthew 13:36). They knew that the intent of the story was of a deeper meaning than the surface literalism of an actual, factual account. Again, Jesus spoke truly, not falsely, but figuratively, not literally, and his hearers had no problem understanding the distinction.

At this point I would suggest that you read the list again near the beginning of this article. Can you see a pattern in Christ’s method of communication? Now consider once again the parables cited as practical impossibilities: the marriage feast, the ten virgins, the two debtors, and the householder’s vineyard. Can you see how these figurative stories picture spiritual realities? Do these findings lay a foundational premise of how to approach the story of the rich man and Lazarus? I believe they do.

Was the story an actual, factual literal account, or does it bear the texture of a wisely woven and cleverly crafted figurative story that pictures pertinent spiritual truths and delivers a pointed message to its target audience? Was it lifting the lid to peer inside a literal, tangible scene, or was it exposing the vain claims of kinship to Abraham and allegiance to Moses made by covetous mammon worshippers who did not hear Moses, nor believe though Lazarus himself had risen from the dead?  

Let us examine the story in detail, and determine whether Christ was speaking literally or figuratively. And as we do, let’s keep in mind that if He spoke figuratively, He did not speak falsely!