Return to Answer

"Is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus a true story" is, I believe, the wrong question to ask. It would be like asking is the story of the Good Samaritan is a true story (for the record, I don't know). The point is that the Good Samaritan is an instructive story set in reality. The story would be much less impactful to a Jewish audience if it didn't involve a Samaritan between Jerusalem & Jericho.

I suggest that the "under the sun" should be read as a description of the activities/affairs/interests of this life - this is the focus of Ecclesiastes 9 - death brings about the end of the vanities of this world.

"Is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus a true story" is, I believe, the wrong question to ask. It would be like asking if the story of the Good Samaritan is a true story (for the record, I don't know). The point is that the Good Samaritan is an instructive story set in reality. The story would be much less impactful to a Jewish audience if it didn't involve a Samaritan between Jerusalem & Jericho.

I suggest that the phrase "under the sun" should be read as a description of the activities/affairs/interests of this life - this is the focus of Ecclesiastes 9 - death brings about the end of the vanities of this world.

The far clearer explanation is that, as with His other parables, Jesus set the story in the real world, using known features of Sheol that did not have to be painstakingly described anew to His audience.

This neither requires accepting the story as an account of real, historical events, nor claiming the parable is devoid of metaphor. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that Jesus' parables are not set in fictional universes--or long, long ago in a galaxy far far away.

I find much to agree with in ScottS's response to this question. I have also argued here that both verses 5 & 10 refer to this world. In the afterlife there will be no knowledge of worldly things, no continuation of worldly activities or worldly agreements, and so on. The preacher is stressing the transient nature of the obsessions of this world (vs. the eternal nature of the divine) (see also my comments on Psalm 146).

This is a pretty innocuous statement if "under the sun" refers to the things of this life, but forever is pretty extreme otherwise.

The far clearer explanation is that, as with His other parables, Jesus set the story in reality, using known features of Sheol that did not have to be painstakingly described anew to His audience.

This neither requires accepting the story as an account of real, historical events, nor claiming the parable is devoid of metaphor. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that Jesus' parables are not set in fictional universes--or long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.

I find much to agree with in ScottS's response to this question. I have also argued here that both verses 5 & 10 refer to this world. In the afterlife there will be no knowledge of worldly things, no continuation of worldly activities or worldly agreements, and so on. The preacher is stressing the transient nature of the obsessions of this world (vs. the eternal nature of the divine) (see also my comments on Psalm 146).

This is a pretty innocuous statement if "under the sun" refers to the things of this life, but forever is quite extreme otherwise.