Luke 16:19-31

Jesus’s second reply to his deriders The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Luke 16:19-31.

Is this a parable or history? The answer depends very much upon the definition we give of a parable. The parable may be strictly a fictitious narrative, in which symbols are used to represent some other object, as the lost sheep to represent a sinner, or the mustard seed the Gospel. In this sense it is no parable; for the rich man represents not some other self or thing, but his own self; namely, a worldly rich man. He is taken as an example of his class. Nor is it a history in the sense of a narration of a particular real individual fact. It is not so much a detail of a particular case as a picture of what takes place in thousands of cases. It may indeed be founded upon or suggested by some particular case; it may be so framed that some particular man, as Herod Antipas, may be suggested to the hearer’s imagination. Just so the parable of the pounds is by all admitted to be based upon the history of Archelaus. And this answers the objection of Trench and others to this view, namely, that it is derogatory to our Lord to suppose that he would frame offensive pictures applicable to particular men. If Archelaus could be the basis of the parable of the pounds, Antipas could be the basis of the parable of the rich man. The parable of the rich man bears some resemblance to that of the rich feel, (Luke 12:13-21;) but that drops the veil at death, whereas this traces his destiny into the world of spirits. That is a rural parable, and was perhaps delivered in the country; whereas this is a parable of town life, and was delivered probably in a city; a city in Eastern Judea, it may be Jericho, a favourite city of the Herod family.