II. Significant Place of Parables in Christ’s Teaching

1. “PARABLE” AND “FABLE,” DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS

The line of demarcation between parable, simile, metaphor, legend, folklore, and fable cannot always be sharply drawn. Often they merge and blend. A parable is a figurative illustration, an extended proverb or metaphor. It is more than a similitude (in which two things are compared), or a metaphor (suggesting a likeness or comparison). It is a word picture, an illuminating story.CFF1 237.3

Technically, a parable signifies a complete and often imaginary story from which a moral or lesson is to be drawn. Etymologically, a parable (parabole, “a placing alongside”) signifies the placing of two or more objects, or events, or circumstances alongside each other for the sake of comparison, and to illustrate and inculcate some moral lesson or higher spiritual truth. Parables are often based on folklore, or fables. And in this case of Dives and Lazarus, it is a trenchant story, based on contemporary Jewish belief and employed by Christ to admonish and rebuke the smugness of the Pharisees.CFF1 238.1

Christ’s parables deal with the majesty of truth. Our Lord used parables to unfold great verities, placing a simple story “alongside,” to illuminate a profound truth. But that truth conformed to fact and reality and to Scriptures, though not always to all aspects of the illustration that was employed. Beneath the outward form, or framework, is always to be found the inward meaning; beneath the visible, the invisible; beneath the temporal and passing is the eternal and abiding.CFF1 238.2

The intended meaning is not always expressed in the words used, but becomes clear by the intent of the comparison. A parable, therefore, conceals from one group what it reveals to another, as will later be noted. Parables must be rightly interpreted, or erroneous conclusions will be drawn.CFF1 238.3

A fable, or apologue, is likewise a fictitious narrative—a legend, myth, or bit of folklore—similarly designed to enforce some wholesome truth. But it is usually a story in which unusual actions are ascribed to animate or inanimate objects—and which could not actually happen—but which nevertheless reflect a helpful truth or principle. A fable builds the case in point upon an artificial setting—and, as noted, one in which it could not actually happen. Consequently its design and meaning are often the more easily discerned.CFF1 238.4

The story of the rich man and Lazarus was not specifically called a parable, evidently because it was really a parabolic fable based on contemporary Pharisaic tradition, but brought over into Jewish usage, according to Bishop Joseph Lightfoot, from pagan backgrounds. ^{11) J, B. Lightfoot, Works, vol. 12, pp. 159-168.} It is obviously a blending of parable and fable—the truth of the teaching not being in the precise words or setting employed but in the designated lesson of the comparison.CFF1 239.1

With this as a setting, let us turn to Christ’s parables in general. These were spoken with such frequency that Matthew wrote, “Without a parable spake he not unto them” (Matthew 13:34).CFF1 239.2

2. PARABOLIC METHOD ADOPTED TO CIRCUMVENT PREJUDICE

At the outset of His ministry Christ used direct teaching methods and plain-spoken discourses. He uttered beatitudes, sayings, laws, promises, prophecies, and similitudes that explained themselves. He thus began the proclamation of His gospel message. But a change came after His first year of direct teaching, which was met with scorn, unbelief, and rising resistance. He then began to adopt the parabolic form of teaching, which had been in vogue for a century or so among Jewish teachers.CFF1 239.3

This astonished His disciples, as He changed from proclaiming the kingdom of Heaven in His former fashion. But He continued to employ, increasingly, the familiar form of rabbinic teaching-parables and “dark sayings,” such as they had reserved for their own chosen disciples.CFF1 239.4

Christ evidently chose this medium because the Jews were spiritually blind and deaf (Matthew 13:10-13), and had now braced themselves against His direct teachings. There was a penal element in this. The Jews had set themselves against the light, or truth, as it was in Jesus. Therefore it was hidden in forms not easy for His antagonists to recognize. He deliberately withdrew light from those who “loved darkness rather than light” (John 3:19, 20; John 1:5; John 12:35, 36). And the Platonic concept of the soul was now one of their cherished positions, molding their thinking.CFF1 239.5

Thus it was that truth was protected from the mockery of the scoffer. But the genuine seekers for truth asked the meaning of His parables, and the Master Teacher explained them step by step until they understood them. Thus truth was advanced despite the untoward circumstances. The underlying laws and principles governing parables were a sufficient safeguard against misunderstanding in their day. And they should be in ours. The disciples understood the Master’s teachings on death and destiny, which ran counter to those of the Pharisees. They were aware of the sharp divergence.CFF1 240.1

So it was that the parable searched out the sincere hearers and led them on into the increasing light of truth. Christ’s objective was unchanged, but His mode of communicating truth was altered to meet the changed conditions. Truth was now wrapped in a parabolic veil. In this way He surmounted the barricade of prejudice, reached the honest in heart, and instructed His circle of disciples. More than that, Christ was speaking for all classes and conditions to the end of time. Such was the paramount place of the parable in the climactic period of our Lord’s ministry.CFF1 240.2

3. REVEALED TO DISCIPLES; CONCEALED FROM HOSTILE JEWS

As stated, by the second year of Christ’s ministry, the leaders and the bulk of the people had refused to accept Him for what He offered Himself to be—the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Christ then directed His teaching increasingly to His followers, and in so doing adopted the parabolic form of presentation, and became the supreme Teacher by the parabolic method. The purpose was obviously both to reveal to His disciples and to conceal from the hostile Jews. Here are Christ’s words to the twelve after He had uttered the parable of the sower:CFF1 240.3

“And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand” (Luke 8:10; cf. Matthew 13:11-17; Mark 4:9-12).CFF1 240.4

It is therefore established that Christ adopted a method of teaching truth that concealed it from those unwilling to be molded by it. And in this method it is not the circumstantial setting or staging of the parable that is significant, but the higher spiritual lesson springing therefrom, which constitutes its essence. For this we must watch in the parable we are about to survey. But first note another angle.CFF1 241.1

4. NUMBER AND SCOPE OF CHRIST’S PARABLES

As to the number and scope of Christ’s parables, Adam Fahling, in his Harmony of the Gospels (page 228), lists fifty-six parables uttered by our Lord. Others—such as Orville Nave, in his Topical Bible—tabulating only the major ones, list but thirty or forty. Some say seventy or more. But there is actually no conflict. The variation simply depends upon whether minor instances are included. And the distribution is interesting. They are confined to the three synoptic Gospels, with Matthew (32), Mark (14), and Luke (36). Next note another factor that is vital in our quest.CFF1 241.2

5. PARABLES NOT A SOUND BASIS FOR DOCTRINE

For centuries hundreds of the most discerning scholars have recognized that parables, although rich in spiritual truth, do not form a proper basis for doctrinal faith or argument, because of their circumstantial settings and indirect character. The Latin expression, Omnia similia claudicunt (“All comparisons limp”), is applicable to parables. We repeat, No point of doctrine can safely be established on figurative passages of Scripture. Its doctrinal value lies only in its accordance with the nonfigurative declaration of Scripture, clearly expressed elsewhere. ^{22) See R. C. Trench, Notes on the Parables of Our Lord; cf. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics.} That is particularly true of this parable. Bloomfield declares that “the best commentators, both ancient and modern, with reason consider it a parable.”CFF1 241.3

Accordingly, scholarly Dr. Alfred Edersheim, in Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, wisely says that doctrine cannot be derived from this parable (the rich man and Lazarus), concerning either the other world or the character or duration of future punishments, or the moral improvement of those in Gehenna. Prebendary Henry Constable calls such a position the “general sentiment of Christians.” And Dr. William Smith insists: “It is impossible to ground the proof of an important theological doctrine on a passage which confessedly abounds in Jewish metaphor.” ^{33) William Smith, Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 1038.}CFF1 241.4

But, it is to be observed, if this passage is conceded to be but a parable, then it clearly cannot be used to prove the eternal conscious torment of the wicked, for, as noted, no doctrine can safely be built upon, or buttressed by, a parable or allegory—especially when it squarely confutes the plain and uniform teaching of Scripture.CFF1 242.1