Is Luke 16:19-31 (Lazarus and the Rich Man) a parable?

When I first became a believer, my assumption is that the Rich Man and Lazarus was a parable.

In time, others convinced me otherwise.

In more recent years, I have chosen to trust my initial instinct.

There is a large variety within the parables, some of them very short (you are the light of the world). But this is obviously a STORY Jesus is telling. Theologically, Jesus knew what he knew through study and the Spirit. This sounds more rabbinical than revelatory.

It is certainly unwise to base an entire view of the afterlife in OT times based on this story, especially since it could be a parable. The whole two-compartment theory is kind of weird and is way too much a leap.

Ed,

Even if it’s true, I don’t see a need to resort to the two compartment theory.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Ed,

Even if it’s true, I don’t see a need to resort to the two compartment theory.

Well, Chip, I do not understand how you can take this as an actual event and not embrace some two-compartment theory. If a great gulf separated the Rich Man and Lazarus and he could see him afar and talk to him, do you believe this is still what heaven and hell are like? De-confuse me (at least about this!).

Ed,

The closing verses of Isaiah paint a picture that could possibly be exactly what you have described - particularly Isaiah 66:24.

[Chip Van Emmerik] Ed,

The closing verses of Isaiah paint a picture that could possibly be exactly what you have described - particularly Isaiah 66:24.

I agree that Jesus taught midrashim about hell based upon this Isaiah passage. But there is a difference between looking upon corpses and having discussions with people suffering damnation, if you get my point. Still, it is worth pondering the connection. (That’s my way of saying, “Good one, Chip”).

Isaiah 66:24 looks like it needs to be divided in two parts. The first part, describes people looking upon the corpses of the men who have transgressed against God. A corpse is not a living being. I am sure that those who are in hell are not corpses. But then again I might be wrong. This part of the verse probably refers to the people who are living now, looking upon the wicked men who have died before they are buried.

Don’t the books 2 Peter and Jude describe Hell as a place of gloomy darkness? I think I have read that the fallen angels were cast into hell, and kept in Chains under gloomy darkness.

[christian cerna] Don’t the books 2 Peter and Jude describe Hell as a place of gloomy darkness? I think I have read that the fallen angels were cast into hell, and kept in Chains under gloomy darkness.

The fallen angels in bonds, in my view, were the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. They are bound in tartarus, a prison that may or may not be connected with the abode of the lost dead who are awaiting the Lake of Fire. The subject of hell and damnation are getting more popular now in repines to Rob Bell’s book, but the truth is that hell is described in a number of ways (outer darkness, a place of fire, etc.). Whatever these mean, one thing is clear: they are not exaggerations.

[Ed Vasicek]

[christian cerna] Don’t the books 2 Peter and Jude describe Hell as a place of gloomy darkness? I think I have read that the fallen angels were cast into hell, and kept in Chains under gloomy darkness.

The fallen angels in bonds, in my view, were the “sons of God” in Genesis 6. They are bound in tartarus, a prison that may or may not be connected with the abode of the lost dead who are awaiting the Lake of Fire. The subject of hell and damnation are getting more popular now in repines to Rob Bell’s book, but the truth is that hell is described in a number of ways (outer darkness, a place of fire, etc.). Whatever these mean, one thing is clear: they are not exaggerations.

True. Our Lord Jesus always describes the final destination of the wicked, as Fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and where their worm does not die, and the smoke of sulfur goes up forever and forever.

Several years ago, I addressed the issue of Soul Sleep in a blog article entitled “Defense of a Conscious Intermediate State.” Since in that article I interected with the issue of whther or not the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, I thought I would offer the relevant portion here for your consideration:

It has often been debated whether this is only a parable or whether it is an actual account of the death of two people and their following existence in Hades. Those who advocate soul sleep often argue that this story is only a parable used by Jesus to illustrate a point and is not, therefore, to be taken as a literal description of a conscious intermediate state. They also sometimes argue that there are other similar stories that were told by the Jews and that Jesus was not, therefore, referring to something that was true, but was simply using the kind of story they would be familiar with in order to make a point. In my opinion, they are correct to see this story as a parable and to observe that such a story was not altogether unique. As Klyne Snodgrass argues in his recent work Stories With Intent: A Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus:

Preachers and certain people throughout church history sometimes have asserted that this story is not a parable but depicts real people and the consequences of their lives. I am not aware of any modern scholar who would agree. Certainly Luke viewed this as a parable. It appears in a collection of parables, possibly stands chiastically parallel to the parable of the Rich Fool, and uses the exact same introductory words (anthrōpos tis) which Luke uses to introduce several other parables [e.g. 10:30; 14:16; 15:11; 16:1; 19:12]. This is without question a parable. (p.426)

As for the contention that this story was not entirely unique in first century Palestine, Snodgrass, in the aforementioned work, is again helpful:

Such usage of preexisting materials is evident in other parables and would not be surprising. In this case, though, such a theory is unlikely and unnecessary, especially when the Gospel story is so different from the Egyptian [story of Setme] and Jewish [1 Enoch] accounts. The Gospel story uses common folkloric motifs shared by several cultures: descent to the underworld, reversal of circumstances, and denunciation of the rich for their neglect of the poor. Lucian’s use of these themes in a variety of works, although from the second century A.D., shows how futile it is to think of even indirect dependence of the Gospel parable on some other account. (p.427)

But, even though dependence upon some particular work or even some specific stock story is highly unlikely, let us assume that the advocates of soul sleep are correct in saying that as a parable it would have been recognized by the Jews as a fictional account intended to make a point. I still cannot agree in such a case that the Jews would have thought Jesus intended to affirm nothing concrete about the intermediate state. On the contrary, Jesus clearly does assume the kind of view of the intermediate state that appeared to be commonly held by the Pharisees and many Jews in the first century. He certainly doesn’t seem to expect them to take issue with the basic features of the story. But I wonder, then, how Jesus could tell such a story without at the same time affirming the validity of such ideas. If, in fact, there is no conscious intermediate state, then how could Jesus tell such a story without leading many people astray? In my opinion, it really doesn’t matter with respect to the issue under discussion whether the story is a parable or not. I see no way that Jesus could have told it in any case without at the same time affirming the concept of a conscious intermediate state such as the story describes. At any rate, this passage is hardly the primary or only text to which advocates of a conscious intermediate state appeal.

If any are interested in readin the entire article, you may do so here: http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2009/10/defense-of-conscious-interm…