Luke 16: parable or not?

[B. W.]

Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" KJV

Titus 1:2: In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began..."KJV

Was Jesus lying? You decide?

Luke16:19, "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..." KJV

How does that help? If it's a parable, lying doesn't enter into it.

Does Jesus's parables contian truth or lies?

That is how it enters into it.

If only a parable tale - then it is not true and Jesus lied. If the story is based on truth that Jesus knows first hand then it is true and he is not lying. Therefore, which is it?

Luke16:19, "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..." KJV

-
-
-

[Jac3510]

So the Story of the Good Samaritan is either an accounting of an actual event or Jesus lied?

• In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' (Lk 10:30-35, NIV)

Or how about the Parable of the Shrewd Manager, which also in Luke 16, immediately preceding our story in question? Notice the way Jesus starts that account:

• Jesus told his disciples: "There was a rich man whose manager was accused of wasting his possessions.

Hmm . . .

[Canuckster1127]

Parables by definition are pithy stories that illustrate one main point. The corallary facts may be factually true or they may be metaphorical constructs designed to illustrate the point. Further, there is not a formula of introduction to each and every parable that indicates in every case that this is a parable.

So no, reading that as a parable would not make it a lie.

The issue for me would be to first accurately determine the form and then apply an interpretation in that context.

Appealing to a presumption that Jesus doesn't lie (which of course is true) as a major premise, and then introducing a minor premise that Jesus said thus and such, therefore it is not a lie, is fallacious reasoning. The intent of Jesus in the use of the material relies upon the literary form. If it is a parable, then the form by definition is illustrative and both the speaker and the listeners understood that, therefore it is not a lie.

The logical construct would thus be a category error.

[spacemantip]

Forgive me for intruding. I have been watching this debate and am intrigued. it seems to me that reason is more important here then the parable. What I mean is the reason for the answer and the reason/s for response. Maybe I am wrong but it appears to me (as an objective bystander) that one is trying to best the other with an answer or the question.

One asks: " Did JESUS lie? ". Personally that brings into question a belief in truth. If one thinks that JESUS could lie about anything then what does that say of the individuals belief in and on JESUS?

Were I going to debate this issue I think I would first want to understand the mind of JESUS as best I could. If I believed that JESUS coud lie........well I don't think I would be paying any attention to anything he says. Lying is a human chacteristic not a HOLY one.

Let me leave you with this..............reading the scriptures backwards is like reading hebrew......you get a clearer understanding of what is being said.

[Canuckster1127]

Forgive me for intruding. I have been watching this debate and am intrigued. it seems to me that reason is more important here then the parable. What I mean is the reason for the answer and the reason/s for response. Maybe I am wrong but it appears to me (as an objective bystander) that one is trying to best the other with an answer or the question.

One asks: " Did JESUS lie? ". Personally that brings into question a belief in truth. If one thinks that JESUS could lie about anything then what does that say of the individuals belief in and on JESUS?

Were I going to debate this issue I think I would first want to understand the mind of JESUS as best I could. If I believed that JESUS coud lie........well I don't think I would be paying any attention to anything he says. Lying is a human chacteristic not a HOLY one.

Let me leave you with this..............reading the scriptures backwards is like reading hebrew......you get a clearer understanding of what is being said.

Spacemantip,

First welcome to the board. I'm glad you're here and you make a good point.

B.W. and I are actually good friends and I have nothing for respect for him. Both he and I would agree that Jesus doesn't lie and further can't lie.

We're just discussing the passage and seeking to understand it better. The issue is not the inspiration or inerrency of Scripture. I don't agree with him on the point he made and we're just discussing it. I think the form is important to establish so it is read correctly in context. It's a fine point in this passage, because whether it is a parable or not has been in dispute for ages, so it is not a new issue.

Christians don't always agree on every point, and I hope we're demonstrating that you can discuss those points without disrespecting each other. As I said, B.W is someone I respect a great deal and because that is true, I can address issues like this with him, because I'm genuinely wanting to learn and at the same time share what I've learned or think on the subject.

Again, welcome and feel free to jump in wherever you want.

Blessings,

Bart

[spacemantip]

Thank you for the invite and the explanation. I think I shall observe as I am not intellectually inclined. Simplicity in words is more my avenue.

[Canuckster1127]

Thank you for the invite and the explanation. I think I shall observe as I am not intellectually inclined. Simplicity in words is more my avenue.

No problem. Not everyone here is necessarily a Christian, and there are strong disagreements over things at time.

Jac is agood friend as well as is swamper too. It just happens on this thread that we're discussing the passage and trying to understand some things better. I can understand that someone just arriving might not pick that up and believe me, if you check on some other threads you'll see that that is not always the case.

You had a good point.

Bart

[spacemantip]

I understand a good debate and even enjoy them myself from time to time but have found that pretty much each Christian has there own idea of what scripture teaches. Come to think of it each non-christian has their own ideas also. I think that is why I study the prophecies. I haven't talked to anyone yet who actually wants to study the prophecies. The book of Daniel has been opened but of course that is an opinion I share with a few.

I always have a problem with repetitive inputs. Just seems to me that once said is enough in a conversation. And the time it takes to reread takes away from the meat of the topic (my opinion).

Thanks for responding.

My name is Bernie

[B. W.]

++++++
Hi all, Somehow I sent the rough draft early this morning without realizing it- I deleted it and now posting the correct one below - 7/8/07 923pm MST
++++++
Canucksters, Parables, especially parables used in the old Jewish tradition were not confined to be pithy stories that illustrate one main point like the Tortoise and the Hare. In fact, Ecclesiastes 12:11 sums up what parables were like:

Ecclesiastes 12:11, “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are those that are composed in collections; they are given from one shepherd.” JPS

In other words, a parable conveys a complex truth in an easy and simple manner which the readers/hearers can relate too. This was meant to spur — goad — the intellect to seek and discover the truth being conveyed in the parable. A parable always goads — impels one to ask another question in order to drive home the truth and uncover all aspects of truth to finally arrive at the final truth.

The Parable of the rich man in Luke 16 impels the reader to ask more questions like this: Iis there a hell? Does it exist? Why does it have to be there? What causes a person to arrive there? How long is eternal recompense? Why must it be eternal? What was the difference between the rich man and the beggar? Are all rich people going to hell and all beggars to Abraham's bosom? How can one avoid it? Is there any hope that we can avoid it? etc and etc.

That is how a parable was used in the old Jewish tradition — leading the hearers/readers to seek out the truth by asking questions and taking the intellectual journey to discover the truth the parable is conveying. They were used to open the ears and sight of the hearers to the truth or close them due to the hearer's hubris that rejects truth. Those that heard continued to ask questions and learn of him; and, those that did not, remained ignorant of true truth, and remained sold to a lie. [Matthew 13:13]

To say that Jesus' parables are just pithy stories that illustrate one main point reduces these to be in the same class and genre as the Tortoise and the Hare, The Lion and the Thorn, The Boy who cried Wolf, etc and etc. This is a crazy and denies the point of biblical parables altogether.

This treatment of the words of Christ only as pithy statements is a result of scholastic reductionism left over from ancient Roman pragmatism that has left its mark upon the modern Western Christian Church. Everything is reduced to either/or propositions. I am not saying that that this scholastic mindset is all wrong, it is needed, but it needs to be balanced. In most cases, it is not.

Here is a case in point underlining this type of thought: The bible declares in Matthew 13:34, “All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:” KJV

This is reduced to the following logical construction that everything Jesus says is a pithy story with one main point and no different than the Tortoise and the Hare. Thus when Jesus states in Luke 18:41, “What do you want me to do for you?” must be a parable because Matthew 13:34 is true.

Or Jesus statement in John 3:1-21 is only a pithy story with a nice moral twist to keep people in line as well as John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” KJV and John 5:39, “You Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.” KJV Are just pithy stories promoting moralization because Matthew 13:34 sates that everything Jesus says is a parable.

When everything Jesus says is reduced to pithy stories then John 6:63, “It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh does not profit, nothing! The Words which I speak to you are spirit and are life,” is no longer true for the reader/hearer because it has been reduced to a nice little literary tale. [LITV]

Yet we have Jesus' words on the matter:

John 8:45-47, “And because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me. 46 Who of you reproves Me concerning sin? But if I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? 47 The one who is of God hears the Words of God; the reason...” LITV

John 14:6, “Jesus said to him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life…”LITV

Jesus tells us plainly that he speaks the truth and he does so in all his parables. These parables lead the readers/hearers to ask more questions and thus learn about the Lord in a living personal way as they go along their life's sojourn separating the wheat from the chaff.

To say that what Jesus is saying concerning the Rich Man and Lazarus is only a pithy story denies the complex truth Jesus is conveying in a story that has to be based on the Truth that the all knowing one knows. If Jesus saw Nathanel being under a fig tree before ever seeing him in person then Jesus knows things we do not, John 1:48. Jesus conveys these complex truths to us in a simple way, to deny this shows that a person does not yet know the manner we learn of Christ, Matthew 11:29.

What Jesus says is true and he does not lie nor does he within his parables; therefore, Jesus was not lying about eternal recompense. According to your own words:

“Appealing to a presumption that Jesus doesn't lie (which of course is true) as a major premise, and then introducing a minor premise that Jesus said thus and such, therefore it is not a lie, is fallacious reasoning. The intent of Jesus in the use of the material relies upon the literary form. If it is a parable, then the form by definition is illustrative and both the speaker and the listeners understood that, therefore it is not a lie.”

[/quote]
What right do you claim that that "Appealing to a presumption that Jesus doesn't lie (which of course is true) as a major premise, and then introducing a minor premise that Jesus said thus and such ,therefore it is not a lie, is fallacious reasoning? So then, is the Rich man and Lazarus just a nice literary story we can yawn at because it is not literally true yet contains some little pithy truth in it? Then the Parable of the sower is not true yet contains a little pithy truth in it because it speaks of a sower?

Wow! No wonder cults have a field day! Jesus speaks truth yet it is fallacious reasoning to believe what he says as true based on the premise of our human understanding that needs to be scholastically and pragmatically layered together to form a nice pithy package.

Modern pragmatic thought misses the point of Isaiah 28:10-13, that the reason that biblical precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little is to bring one to repentance: that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. If it doesn't do this — then it is not used correctly.

Isaiah 28:10, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: 11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. 12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. 13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.” KJV

So if I am understanding you correctly, and I pray that I am wrong in my assumption of reading your response, that you are boldly declaring that it is fallacious reasoning to believe what Jesus says as true because he just speaks in a pithy kind of way and nothing he says should be taken literally. WOW!!

Well, I am a sinner then because I believe what Jesus says as truth — if that makes me a heretic, so be it. My conscious is clear in this matter. The words that Jesus speaks are spirit and are life. I see the truth in his parables, not fallacious reasoning. His parables cause me to ask questions and seek Lord Jesus Christ for answers. I continue my journey. I will not stop just because you say Christ words are just pithy stories that have some singular truth to them. I seek, I ask, I knock, I prayer, I repent, I surrender, I follow my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

For me Jesus does not lie and he speaks the truth and that truth engages a journey of exploration into the nature and character of God [John17:3] and if this is such fallacious reasoning then what do you have to offer?
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

B.W.,

I'll have to digest your posting more and no, obviously I'm not claiming you're a heretic or that your thinking is heretical.

Some of this strikes me as similar to the reasoning invoked by some with some of Christ's hyperbolic statements such as cutting off limbs, plucking out eyes. Outside the context of the form read literally the meaning appears quite clear and radical, however, as I hope we both know, Christ is using a form of teaching and expression to illustrate a point strongly not to argue for mutilation or dismemberment in some grisly from of works based salvation.

The degree within a parable is not as strong and I will have to reconsider whether I'm looking at it too simplistically, which I may be, but by the same token, looking for a one to one correlation to each point as either directly illustrative of a specific point or demanding that the specific points have to be taken as literally representative of an observed scene rather than an illustrative story, which is not, nor have I introduced the thought of a fable and have trouble seeing where you're stretching to get that.

I'll digest this some more and perhaps respond more, but you're grossly misrepresenting and stretching my thoughts here.

Blessings,

Bart

[B. W.]

B.W., I'll have to digest your posting more and no, obviously I'm not claiming you're a heretic or that your thinking is heretical.

Some of this strikes me as similar to the reasoning invoked by some with some of Christ's hyperbolic statements such as cutting off limbs, plucking out eyes. Outside the context of the form read literally the meaning appears quite clear and radical, however, as I hope we both know, Christ is using a form of teaching and expression to illustrate a point strongly not to argue for mutilation or dismemberment in some grisly from of works based salvation.

The degree within a parable is not as strong and I will have to reconsider whether I'm looking at it too simplistically, which I may be, but by the same token, looking for a one to one correlation to each point as either directly illustrative of a specific point or demanding that the specific points have to be taken as literally representative of an observed scene rather than an illustrative story, which is not, nor have I introduced the thought of a fable and have trouble seeing where you're stretching to get that.

I'll digest this some more and perhaps respond more, but you're grossly misrepresenting and stretching my thoughts here.

Blessings,

Bart

Hi Bart, I posted the rough draft by mistake. I reposted the final in its place so please go by the 7/8/07 923pm MST post.

As for limbs, again this causes the readers / hearers to ask questions and seek the answers to these by prayer and study and then you come to the understanding of what truth Jesus is nailing down which basically points out: None righteous - no not one [except God of course].

All I ask is to read the parables as truths and let the parables cause you to ask question, seek, and find by means of prayer and bible study. The Lord will answer - he does in many varied ways. Sometimes he uses another person in mysterious ways, or reveals from the bible text an answer that leads to another question, or through prayer, even a dream that wakes one in the night, the Lord answers many varied ways.

Next, this is something I had to learn the hard way and I will share it with you and those reading now:

The ancient Jewish people had a culture and a manner of thinking that is foreign to us. It is best defined as old Middle Eastern. They thought in 'wholes' not just individual parts. The individual parts were used to explore and uncover the 'whole.' That is what is meant by 'seeking wisdom.' Putting it together and seeing the whole. This takes knowledge. When you look up the word meanings for understanding, knowledge, wisdom the ancient Hebrew language used, you'll see this concept.

The problem I had was not understanding the 'whole' approach they used simply because I was from the Western tradition that was heavily influenced by ancient Roman pragmatism and later scholasticism. This taught me to break things down to individual parts to reduce to a single truth and neglect seeing the whole picture. We do this in our manner of scripture study — reduce to a logical conclusion of it can only mean either this or that because that can only means this.

The way the bible was written and the languages it was written in — Hebrew/Greek explores in 'wholes' not just individual parts. The individual parts were used to explore and uncover the 'whole.'

Biblical parables used the same approach. These point out a complex truth in a manner that can be easily transmitted which awakes and engages thought. In other words, to pose a truth, then let the readers/hearers ask questions. Then another parable is spoken or the recipient's answers were answered with another question. This was repeated until the 'whole' is revealed. This manner of learning has been almost forgotten about in the Western Tradition.

It is important to keep this in mind when studying the bible. That is why I try to convey that people prayerfully read their bibles by asking questions to the Lord what a passage means, then begin the journey of uncovering the 'whole.'

One last thing concerning fables — when the bible is reduced to a literary work with poignant moralizing as truth, then it is reduced to the status of a fable in the minds many. Then certain people can create fables from the bible to support their views — cults do this.

Just be careful of a pragmatic and scholastic approach to the scriptures and reducing the truths too much. There is a place and a time for this style of approach as long as you use it to uncover individual parts to see the totality — whole — of the truth under prayerful investigation. This is what I was getting at when I was writing about the truths biblical parables contain and that Jesus did not lie when revealing parables.

Jesus spoke complex truths and these truths he conveyed often in parables that people could relate too and understand. He did so for us to ask, seek, knock, and find, Matthew 7:7-11 and Matthew 13:10-17.

One last thing, the Lord heals by creating wholeness. Human beings create strife just looking at individual parts and declaring that their possessed part is the best and only. I pray that we all should see with our eyes and hear with our ears to gain completed understanding so that our hearts will turn toward the truth that God himself conveys in these scriptures: James 3:13-18 and 1 John 3:10-11.
-
-
-

[zoegirl]

If I may presume to offer something here.

Somehow it has been presented that Canusckster is playing around with scripture, the parables in particular. I have not caught this in any of his posts. Somehow the logic presented became "Jesus does not lie, therefore everything He said is true and actual fact". But analogies and allegories may be used, their message and meaning is still true. The foundation that Jesus does not lie does not then exclude Him from using stories that may or may not be true. By using this form, Jesus does not put Himself in a position of exposing Himself as a deceiver. Nor are we in a position of assuming that because He does not lie, we muct accept all of these stories as actual fact. This is what I am reading in Canuckster's posts. If Jesus speaks in parables, we do not need to assume that everything is actual, but neither as we to yawn. I think any student understands the power of good teaching, and CHrist's use of parables (as you said yourself) is very powerful indeed.

What Jesus says is true and he does not lie nor does he within his parables; therefore, Jesus was not lying about eternal recompense. According to your own words:

“Appealing to a presumption that Jesus doesn't lie (which of course is true) as a major premise, and then introducing a minor premise that Jesus said thus and such, therefore it is not a lie, is fallacious reasoning. The intent of Jesus in the use of the material relies upon the literary form. If it is a parable, then the form by definition is illustrative and both the speaker and the listeners understood that, therefore it is not a lie.”

What right do you claim that that "Appealing to a presumption that Jesus doesn't lie (which of course is true) as a major premise, and then introducing a minor premise that Jesus said thus and such ,therefore it is not a lie, is fallacious reasoning? So then, is the Rich man and Lazarus just a nice literary story we can yawn at because it is not literally true yet contains some little pithy truth in it? Then the Parable of the sower is not true yet contains a little pithy truth in it because it speaks of a sower

I think you are reading way too much in what he said. He is not playing them down, nor implying that we can dismiss these pithy stories.

[B. W.]

If I may presume to offer something here.

Somehow it has been presented that Canusckster is playing around with scripture, the parables in particular. I have not caught this in any of his posts. Somehow the logic presented became "Jesus does not lie, therefore everything He said is true and actual fact". But analogies and allegories may be used, their message and meaning is still true. The foundation that Jesus does not lie does not then exclude Him from using stories that may or may not be true. By using this form, Jesus does not put Himself in a position of exposing Himself as a deceiver. Nor are we in a position of assuming that because He does not lie, we muct accept all of these stories as actual fact. This is what I am reading in Canuckster's posts. If Jesus speaks in parables, we do not need to assume that everything is actual, but neither as we to yawn. I think any student understands the power of good teaching, and CHrist's use of parables (as you said yourself) is very powerful indeed. I think you are reading way too much in what he said. He is not playing them down, nor implying that we can dismiss these pithy stories.

Yes, and you are correct that I read too much into Bart's comments because at the time I was not sure of what he was stating as I am now. I misunderstood Bart to be stating that Jesus' parable of the Rich man and Lazarus held no truth because it was just a pithy story.

I have run into those that treat these verses in this way and I most definitely over reacted as I now see that Bart did not mean this at all. Sometimes the spirit of PL comes over me and I go into attack dog mode — sorry about that Bart.

Let me clarify what I meant that Jesus does not lie: Jesus' parables paint complex truths in a simple and thought provoking way that people can relate too and understand. It is not important if these people in the Luke 16 account did or did not exist — what is important is the Truth of what Christ is revealing, which makes it true.

There is a problem that arises when people split hairs over if these people existed or not and that is this; it aids cult like groups to downplay the truth of the story and explain it away. "It can't be true because these people did not exist in the Luke 16 account" is the most common form of reasoning I hear from these groups. I mistook Bart's line of reason for this style I have often encountered. Sorry about that.

Maybe we should all learn from this and realize that what Jesus says is true in his parables and not split hairs. Stick with the truth. Learn to explore the parable truths through prayer and bible study by the question method I wrote about. Therefore, for me, the Parable is true as are all his parables and Jesus is not lying in any of his stories. As long as you stick to the truth of the parable and drive this home, cult like groupthink is easy to explode and reveal as false. When you split hairs — this is much harder to do.
-
-
-

[Canuckster1127]

Thanks B.W.

We are on the same page. The issue is not truth. It is the form utilized to communicate the truth.

I see red flags occassionally too and go after them.

Bart