Are the words of Jesus in Luke 16:19-31 intended to be understood literally or as a parable? Unfortunately, many modern religious teachers isolate the story from its original context in a series of parables that begin in chapter 15: the lost sheep. The lost coin, the lost son, the shrewd manager and the lost rich man. The Random House College Dictionary describes a parable as “a short, allegorical story designed to convey a truth or moral lesson- a parable is a vehicle for the moral lesson being taught.It is appropriate here to ask to whom Jesus was speaking in Luke 16:19-31. Which category of people was He dealing with? The last verse(v14) before Jesus’ speaks again, tells us He was speaking to the Pharisees, a class of men who were notorious all through the Gospels for their refusal to deal honestly with Him and the truths He taught.

So, who was the symbolic rich man? The Jews had been blessed above measure by a knowledge of God and his plan of salvation for all mankind. They had received “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises.” Romans 9:4. Only a Jew would pray to “Father Abraham,” as we find the rich man doing later in the story. The Jewish nation was clearly represented by this character.

By contrast, Lazarus symbolized all those people in spiritual poverty—the Gentiles. The rich Jews had hoarded the truth, and in so doing, they had corrupted themselves. Only moments before relating this parable, Jesus had rebuked the Pharisees for their spiritual conceit. (Luke 16:15-18.) What was to be the result of this terrible conceit? The Jews had enjoyed “the good life” while on earth but had done nothing to bless or enrich their neighbours. No further reward was due. (Luke 6:24, 25.) Conversely, the poor in spirit, symbolized by Lazarus, would inherit the kingdom of heaven, just as “the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.” Jesus said (Matthew 21:31.)

The miracle of raising the real-life Lazarus from the dead soon afterward confirmed the accuracy of Jesus’ conclusion in v31. Serious problems arise with a literal interpretation of the story elements. Can we believe that all the saints are even now gathered in Abraham’s bosom? If they are, in whose bosom does Abraham rest? And if there is really a great gulf fixed between heaven and hell, how could the rich man possibly have been heard by Abraham? Perhaps more disturbing, how could the saints enjoy the comforts of heaven while enduring the cries of the wicked being tormented?
Another dilemma that arises with a literal interpretation of this story could be called “the mystery of the empty graves.” If this is taken literally, apparently neither of the two leading characters spent very long in the grave—both being whisked away rather quickly to their respective places of reward. Their bodies obviously came along, for we find the rich man lifting up his eyes and desiring to have his tongue cooled by a drop of water from the finger of Lazarus who was resting, as we have seen, in Abraham’s bosom. Enough graves have been exhumed in recent years to know that the bodies of the deceased are carried neither to heaven nor hell after burial. They finally turn to dust and await the resurrection.

From these few examples, we begin to see that in this parable, Jesus was not trying to explain the physical realities of the afterlife. Instead, He was referring to the unfaithfulness of the Jews regarding their assigned responsibility. As stewards of the special message of truth, they utterly failed to share it with the Gentiles, who were eager to hear it. In fact, the entire chapter of Luke 16 is devoted to the subject of stewardship.
To attempt to stretch the parable of the rich man and Lazarus to cover the doctrine of hellfire is to miss the point Jesus intended to convey. The Bible speaks with unmistakable clarity about hell in many other places. As we Have previously noted, nowhere do the Scriptures teach that the wicked will continue to suffer in the fires of hell through the ceaseless ages of eternity. Rather, they will be utterly destroyed. Jesus never would have compromised the integrity of the Holy Scriptures by teaching a doctrine contrary to its own overwhelming testimony on the subject.