THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.
The previous chapter left us with the problem on our hands whether it
were better to try to overthrow all that Moses and the prophets have
written respecting _sheol_ and the condition of those who enter therein,
for the purpose of sustaining the common view of the rich man and
Lazarus, or to try to account for the use of the language used in that
narrative, in harmony with what Moses and the prophets have said
respecting that place.
In the first place, we cannot set aside what Moses and the prophets have
written; for Christ, in the very case under consideration, indorses them
and refers us to them for instruction. How, then, can we account for the
fact that the rich man is represented as conscious, intelligent, and
active, in _hades_, when Moses and the prophets have taught us that
_hades_ is a place of darkness and silence, without knowledge, wisdom,
or device? If the record of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, the
use of such language is at once accounted for; for if it is a parable,
the language is allegorical; and in allegory, life and action are often
attributed to inanimate objects, for the sake of enforcing or
illustrating some particular truth.
Some notable instances of this style of writing are furnished us in the
Old Testament. In Judges 9:7-15, the trees are represented as going
forth to anoint a king over them; and they appealed to the olive tree
and the fig tree and the vine, and received answers from them in which
they declined to leave their stations of usefulness to be promoted over
them. Finally, they appealed to the bramble; and the bramble accepted
the trust. Now this representation was not designed to teach that trees
ordain civil government, walk about, and converse together; but it was
to illustrate the folly of the men of Shechem in electing Abimelech
king. Again, in 2 Kings 14:9, we read that the king of Israel sent to
the king of Judah, saying, “The thistle in Lebanon sent to the cedar
that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my son to wife.” This
is not to teach that thistles and cedars have sons and daughters who
unite in marriage, but to illustrate the contempt which the king of
Israel felt for the proposition which the king of Judah made to him.
Landis, p. 188, claims that it makes no difference whether the case of
the rich man and Lazarus is a parable or not, since a parable should not
be so worded as to convey a wrong impression to the mind, which this
would do, if the soul is not conscious in death. We reply, It makes all
the difference in the world; for if it is a parable, the life and action
attributed to the inanimate inhabitants of hades, is not to teach
anything respecting their real condition, any more than the life and
action attributed to the trees and brambles in the cases referred to, is
designed to teach what their condition is; but this intelligence and
action are attributed to these inanimate objects, to illustrate some
great truth which the speaker wished to enforce.
In the case of the rich man and Lazarus, what was the object in view?
Answer: To rebuke the Pharisees for their covetousness (“And the
Pharisees also, who were _covetous_, heard all these things; and they
derided him.” Verse 14); to show to them, since they thought that riches
in this life was a mark of the divine favor and would secure God’s
blessing in the next, that if they gave themselves up to the sensual
enjoyment of their riches, neglecting and oppressing the poor, they
would, in the future, meet God’s wrath instead of his favor; and that
the poor, whom they despised and oppressed, might attain to that very
state of felicity, set forth under the figure of Abraham’s bosom, of
which they thought themselves so sure.
That this is a parable seems abundantly evident: 1. It stands in
connection with a long list of parables. The preceding chapter, Luke 15,
contains three. This chapter opens with the parable of the unjust
steward; and there is no intimation of a change from parable to literal
narration in this case. 2. It is said that this cannot be a parable,
because it is introduced by a direct assertion. “There was a certain
rich man,” &c. But others which are parables are introduced in exactly
the same manner. Thus verse 1, “There _was_ a certain rich man which had
a steward,” &c. And chapter 15:11: “A certain man _had_ two sons,” &c.
3. The prophets, to whom we are referred, speak of the dead in _sheol_,
in the nether parts of the earth, as conversing together, taunting each
other, weeping bitterly, refusing to be comforted, &c., representations
exactly similar to those made in the case of the rich man and Lazarus,
and full as striking, but which no one can regard as setting forth the
actual condition of the dead.
Thus in Isa. 14:9-20, it is represented that when the king of Babylon is
overthrown, he goes down into _sheol_, and the DEAD (for there are no
others in its dark domain) are stirred up to meet him. The kings that
had been destroyed by the king of Babylon, are represented as having
thrones in _sheol_ beneath, and when the king of Babylon joins them in
their dark abode, they rise up from their thrones, and mock him with
feigned obeisance, as in life they had rendered him real homage. And
they say, “Art thou become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us? Is
this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?”
No one can suppose that they literally act or speak thus. But all this
is a striking figure to represent that death would reduce the king of
Babylon to the same level with his subjects and prisoners.
Again in Eze. 31:15-18, and 32:17-32, Pharaoh and his host, slain in
battle with the king of Babylon, are set forth in the same manner. The
strong among the mighty are represented as speaking to him out of the
midst of _sheol_, as he enters therein. And this _sheol_, in “the nether
parts of the earth,” full of graves and of the dead, is contrasted with
the land of the living. These victims of slaughter went down to _sheol_
with their weapons of war; and their swords they “laid under their
heads;” and when Pharaoh, lying among them, saw the multitude of his
enemies that were slain also, he was comforted at the sight.
Another case, perhaps still more remarkable, is that of Rachel. Jer.
31:15-17; Matt. 2:17, 18; Gen. 25:17-20. Long ages after Rachel had
died, and entered into _sheol_, a dreadful slaughter took place among
her posterity. Thereupon she is represented as breaking forth into
lamentation and bitter weeping, and refusing to be comforted because her
children were not. And the Lord says to her, “Refrain thy voice from
weeping, and thine eyes from tears; for thy work shall be rewarded,
saith the Lord.”
No one can suppose that Rachel literally wept at the murder of her
children nearly 2000 years after her death, nor that the slaughtered
Egyptians put their swords under their heads as they were lying in
_sheol_, and conversed together in the nether parts of the earth, some
being comforted, and others ashamed; nor that the kings overthrown by
the king of Babylon rose up from their sepulchral thrones in mock
solemnity, and taunted him with becoming weak as they.
But these were all figures to set forth great and salutary truths. May
not our Lord then, for once, be permitted for a like purpose to use a
like figure, so largely employed by the prophets, and so well known to
his hearers, by personifying persons in _hades_ to perform actions which
were not there literally to occur? We have certainly as good reason to
suppose that Rachel, the Egyptians, and the king of Babylon, were real
personages, and their descent into _sheol_ and the accompanying
circumstance as related by the prophets, veritable history, as to
suppose that Dives was a real character, and his torment in _hades_, and
his conversation with Abraham, a real transaction.
Those who held in their hands the Old-Testament scriptures were
perfectly familiar with such figures. There the “trees of the field”
converse and “clap their hands,” the “floods” lift up their “voice,” the
hills and mountains “sing,” stones from the wall “cry out,” and beams
“answer,” the blood of Abel finds a “voice,” and “cries out from the
ground,” and dead men rejoice over the fall of their rivals, slain by
the sword. In a volume abounding with such figures, cannot for once a
rich man, representing a class of living persons, be endowed in _hades_
with life and speech? must this one figure of personification be singled
out from all others, as a rigidly literal narrative, and be made to
sustain the weight of the most terrific doctrine of which the mind of
man can conceive?
Sufficient evidence has been produced to show that this is a parable.
And now we invite the attention of the reader to the testimony of two
eminent authors respecting the use which should be made of parables.
Dr. Clarke (note on Matt. 5:26) says:--
“Let it be remembered that by the consent of all (except the basely
interested), no _metaphor_ is ever to be produced in _proof_ of a
doctrine. In the things that concern our eternal salvation, we need the
most pointed and _express evidence_ on which to establish the faith of
our souls.”
And Trench, in his work on parables, lays down this very important
rule:--
“The parables may not be made first sources of doctrine. Doctrines
otherwise and already grounded, may be illustrated, or indeed further
confirmed by them, but it is not allowable to constitute doctrine first
by their aid. They may be the outer ornamental fringe, but not the main
texture of the proof. For from the literal to the figurative, from the
clearer to the more obscure, has ever been recognized as the law of
Scripture interpretation. This rule, however, has been _often
forgotten_, and controversialists, looking round for arguments with
which to sustain some _weak position_, one for which they can find no
other support in Scripture, often invent for themselves supports in
these.”
But some persist that this is not a parable, but a literal narrative;
and not to seem captious, we will consider it in this light. If this is
veritable history, all the particulars must be taken literally. Then the
wicked, tormented in the flames of hell, are within sight and speaking
distance of the saved in Heaven. In other words, Heaven is but the shore
of hell, and on that shore the redeemed can sit and watch the damned in
their fearful contortions of agony for which there is no name, and
listen to their entreaties for relief and their shrieks of fathomless
despair, to an extent, it would seem, sufficient to satisfy the fiercest
vengeance and the most implacable revenge. If this be so, our friends
must certainly abandon the argument they build on Rev. 6:9, 10, where
they have it that the souls of the martyrs, disembodied and conscious,
cry to God to visit vengeance upon their persecutors. If they were where
they could look over into the fiery gulf, and behold their persecutors
vainly battling with its flaming billows, or if not already there,
destined in a few short years to be plunged therein, let no one say of
the holy martyrs that they would, under such circumstances, cry
impatiently to God to hasten or intensify his vengeance. The arguments
based on the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus, and Rev. 6:9, 10,
must, one or the other of them, be given up; for they devour each other.
Let the advocates of the popular theory look to this.
The beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. The
rich man also died, and was buried. Let it be noted that the persons
themselves, as a whole, are spoken of, not any of their essential
elements, or immaterial appendages. Nothing is said of the soul of
either the rich man or Lazarus. As we are now considering this as a
literal transaction, a question vital to the argument is, _When_ do the
angels bear those who have died, as persons (for there is nothing
anywhere said about the angels’ carrying their souls), into Abraham’s
bosom, or the state of the blessed? Such scriptures as Matt. 24:30, 31;
1 Thess. 4:16, 17, answer this question very explicitly: “And he shall
send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather
together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the
other.” When? At the second advent of the Son of man in majesty and
glory; for then it is that the voice of the archangel, ringing through
the long galleries of _hades_, shall wake the righteous dead from their
silent slumbers, and angels bear them upward on wings of light, to be
forever with the Lord.
The rich man dies, and is buried; and his next experience is the
suffering of torment in consuming flame. How long after his burial he
finds himself in this torment, we are not directly informed. But he has
bodily organs; for he has eyes to see, and a tongue to be cooled; but
these the dead are not usually considered to possess till the
resurrection. This drives Landis, p. 191, to the unusual admission that
the soul retains the human form, with its corresponding organs, hands,
feet, eyes, tongue, &c. Again, the rich man sees Lazarus in Abraham’s
bosom; but, as we have already seen, Lazarus is not literally borne
there by the angels till the resurrection.
As a literal transaction, the scene is inevitably located, by the
concurrent testimony of all Scripture, beyond the resurrection. How,
then, it can be said to transpire in _hades_, we leave those to decide
who believe that it is a literal transaction. Certain it is that no such
scenes can really occur in _hades_, if the representations of that place
given us by Moses and the prophets are correct; while analogous scenes
will really take place beyond the resurrection: there the righteous are
rewarded, and the wicked punished in devouring fire; there the Lord told
the impenitent Jews that they should see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in
the kingdom of God, and they themselves thrust out, and that then there
would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Luke 13:28.
One view, only, maintains harmony between this and other portions of the
sacred writings; and that is the one which is here, imperfectly it may
be, but yet sincerely, advocated: that Christ, following the example of
the prophets, uses the figure of personification, and anticipates, as
transpiring in the grave, scenes which substantially occur beyond the
resurrection; and that the object of the parable was to rebuke the
Pharisees for their covetousness by indicating the fate that awaited a
life of avarice and oppression here, however sumptuous that life might
be.
That it does not teach the existence of conscious souls between death
and the resurrection, is forever settled by the fact that Lazarus could
return only by a resurrection from the dead. When the rich man requested
that Lazarus might be sent to warn his brethren, Abraham replied that
they had Moses and the prophets, and if they would not hear them, they
would not “be persuaded _though one rose from the dead_.” The
conversation did not therefore relate to the coming back of the immortal
soul of Lazarus; and indeed no mention is made of any such thing in the
whole transaction.
Therefore, interpret it as we may, it cannot be reasonably or
scripturally used to prove the entrance of man’s naked, unclothed spirit
into bliss or woe at the hour of death.