Is the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31 a parable?
This text is from an article written by David Gooding sometime between 1987–1990.
No, it isn't. And we can see that it isn't, if we consider the nature of biblical parables and then compare that with what we find in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
The first thing to notice about a biblical parable is that it differs from a biblical fable, such as Jotham's fable in Judges 9, in one important respect. In the storyline of a fable, things are said to happen that do not, and cannot, happen in real life, such as trees talking to one another and going around inviting various other trees to accept the position of king over all the trees. The details of the storyline in a fable, then, are not true to life, though of course the message conveyed by the fable is true.
But in a parable, not only is the message true, but the details of the storyline on which it is based are drawn from real life and are therefore true to life. The parable of the Sower (Matthew 13:3–9, 18–23), for instance, is obviously not intended as a lesson on agriculture. The agricultural details of its storyline are a parable of higher things, and describe the various results of preaching the gospel. But nevertheless, the agricultural details of the storyline are taken from real life and are therefore true to life. In the day-to-day world, there are real farmers who sow real seed; and there really are different kinds of soil which give different results.
Now let us suppose for a moment that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is a parable. The details of its storyline would then be meant as a parable of higher things; but in themselves and taken at the literal level, the details of the storyline would still be true to real life. In the literal day-to-day life, there are in fact rich men and poor men, as in the parable; both rich men and poor men die, as in the parable; and some literally go to heaven and some to hell, as in the parable. Taking the story as a parable would do nothing to diminish the literal reality of heaven and hell; it would, in fact, emphasise their reality.
Why then should we not regard the story as a parable? The reason is that it would be impossible to make sense of the story as a parable. Let us recall, as an example, the parable of the Sower. The true-to-life details of its storyline are concerned with sowing literal seed into various types of ground; but obviously these literal details are a parable of sowing at a higher level, the sowing of the word of God into the ground of human hearts.
Now take the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The literal true-to-life details of the storyline concern the lifestyles of the two men, their deaths and the heaven and hell to which they went after death. But if the story was a parable, these literal details, all real enough in themselves, would also have to be a parable of some higher meaning. What higher meaning could that possibly be? The judgment that comes after death is not a parable of some higher judgment: it is itself the Last Judgment. Heaven and hell are not parables of some higher reality: they are themselves the ultimate realities. The literal details of the storyline in the story then, are not a parable conveying some higher message: they themselves are the message. Death is coming; heaven and hell are real; make sure you are prepared.
Someone will perhaps object that, when the story depicts Lazarus being 'in Abraham's bosom', we cannot understand that phrase literally, and therefore we must take the story as a parable. But this objection confuses two different things: figurative language on the one hand and parable on the other.
It is quite true that we cannot take the phrase 'in Abraham's bosom' literally. Lazarus was not sitting (together with the uncountable number of the redeemed) on Abraham's lap. The phrase is obviously used in a figurative, metaphorical sense. But the fact that a story uses figurative language does not mean that the story as a whole is a parable. If a parliamentary newspaper reporter writes an article in which he declares that the prime minister has all the members of his cabinet 'eating out of his hand', no one will suppose that the phrase is meant to be understood literally. On the other hand, the use of this figurative expression in the article does not mean that the article should be regarded as a parable. It is nothing but straightforward parliamentary reporting.
The great realities of the eternal world go far beyond our present powers of visualization or comprehension. It is to be expected therefore that, in talking to us of those great realities, God will often have to use figurative and metaphorical language; but the heaven and hell which he describes in that figurative language are not parables: they are the realities themselves.
