The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

FROM remote antiquity, the parable, or, as it might with propriety be called, the word picture, has been largely employed in the illustration and enforcement of moral truth. Twelve hundred years before the advent of our Lord, Jotham, the son of Gideon, reproved the men of Shechem for having chosen Abimelech to be their king, in the use of that most graphic and apposite fiction, wherein the trees sought to make a king over them. Subsequently to his effort, and clear down to the commencement of our era, there were found among the Jewish Rabbis, as well as among those of other nations, learned men whose skill in the use of this rhetorical figure demand our most enthusiastic commendation. But of all persons known to the historic age, our Lord himself attained to the highest perfection in the construction and use of the parable. In his hands it was on various occasions employed with telling effect, and so largely was it used by him that the record which has preserved for our benefit the numerous fictions of this nature which he employed, occupies no insignificant place in the gospel account of his ministry. But from his day to the present time, there seems to have been a steady decrease in the use of this rhetorical method.

Why the Holy Spirit should have worked so radical a change in the style of the New Testament writers, who followed Christ, it would be difficult to state. But it is nevertheless true that the parable is almost, if not quite, lost sight of in their more prosaic productions, whether oral or written. So far as authors and orators are concerned, this side of the first century, it is possible that the desuetude into which this popular method has fallen may be attributed, measurably, to the fact that the poverty of the more recent efforts, when compared with those of the great Master, becomes so apparent that the more modern disciples of the art have become dissatisfied with their own productions to that extent that discouragement has ensued, and a change of style been found desirable.

But beyond this consideration, it is doubtless true that the natural defects inherent in the parabolic method have contributed largely to its decadence, and almost universal disuse at the present time. For, while it is true that it presents some marked advantages over the more direct and less ornate style of logical induction, it is also true that its use is attended by certain very grave disadvantages. As it regards the former, little can be said, except that, being more dramatic in its character, it holds the attention and commands the interest of a class of hearers who could, with difficulty, be held, by the more logical style. Possessing, as it does, somewhat the character of romance, it readily fascinates those who would shrink from the mental effort of either making or following a logical deduction. So true is this that even children, incapable of appreciating the moral which the speaker is seeking to impress, are immediately attracted and held in rapt attention by the array of figures or characters which are presented in his narration.

All, therefore, which is necessary to this form of argument is that the speaker, having got possession of the ears and intellect of his hearers, make the conclusions which are to be drawn so obvious that they cannot be mistaken. This done either by full explanation or otherwise, he has carried his point and reached the hearts and judgments of individuals who otherwise would have been too indifferent to his theme to receive any appreciable benefit from his discourse.

Having said thus much in regard to the advantages of this form of speech, but little need be added respecting its drawbacks. In fine, the most of them have been shadowed forth already. In the first place, the skill required in its construction is so great, in order to success in its use, that few could ever hope to attain to it. In the second place, when stated without explanation, it is nearly as liable to mislead certain minds as it is to conduct them safely to the desired conclusion; since the wisdom required to the understanding of the parable is nearly equal to that demanded in its creation. Hence we read in the Scriptures that "the legs of the lame are not equal; so is a parable in the mouth of fools." And again, that after Christ had spoken in parables to those that were without, in order "that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand," it was necessary for him to explain in private to his disciples their import, since, though familiar with this line of teaching, they had found themselves incapable of drawing therefrom the precise idea which he wished to emphasize. In the third place, as the ambiguity of this kind of teaching is so great that it could not safely be employed in the inculcation of important doctrines without full and explicit explanation, it is too cumbersome for use in all such cases; since expedition would dictate that the more direct method of expressing one's self in the outset, so as to be easily understood, should be chosen.

As an illustration of this fact, we have but to call attention to the endless controversies which have marked, if not marred, the history of the church in reference to points of faith which it has been supposed find their authentication in those portions of Scripture which partake of the allegoric or parabolic nature. So unsatisfactory have been the results of these wordy contests, that, we, believe, at the present time it is conceded by the best authorities that no tenet should derive its chief support from anything except those portions of Scripture which are the freest from figure, and the most fully characterized by explicitness in statement.

Having said thus much in regard to parables in general, we wish now to speak of one in particular, i. e., the one which relates to the rich man and Lazarus. Our object in so doing is to show that the use which has been made of it in the theological world, so far as it has been employed as the basis of an argument to prove the natural immortality of man, is altogether illegitimate. In doing so, the correctness of the second proposition above will be still further illustrated, as the number of those who have employed it for such a purpose has not been inconsiderable.

The first labor to be entered upon will be that of establishing the proposition that the narrative under consideration is in reality a parable, as some have insisted that it is not, but that it is rather a matter of actual history. The effect of the view held by the latter class is at once apparent. If they be right, then the theological bearing of the historic facts presented by the Saviour on the occasion we are considering, forever establishes the doctrine that men live between death and the Judgment, since he, in the sixteenth chapter of Luke, gives a detailed account of the thoughts, feelings, actions, and conversations of individuals who had passed from this, and were then living in the future state.

The only argument hitherto presented by the advocates of the historic character of the story which seems to be worthy of a moment's thought, is found in their declaration that it is nowhere called a parable. The force of this consideration, however, is seeming rather than real. If it were true that there were nowhere found in the Scriptures parables which are not declared to be such, then a bare presumption would be established in favor of the theory under examination. But, mark you, this will be a presumption only; since it would not be impossible for an exception to exist to the general rule thus established. But when it can be shown, as it certainly can, that no such rule exists at all, and that there are many parables which are generally conceded to be such, not because of positive Scripture declarations (which are lacking), but because of the nature of the text and context, then, even the presumption is utterly swept away. Let, therefore, the reader who would be satisfied as to whether parables are always thus denominated in the word of God, by the individual uttering them or by others, examine the following, which are nowhere said to be such in the sacred writings; viz., Unclean spirits, treasure hid in a field, pearl of great price, net cast into the sea, ten virgins, talents, beam and mote, good Samaritan, prodigal son, lost piece of silver, unjust steward, two sons, children of the bride-chamber, wise and foolish builders, etc.

Having disposed of the negative, let us now give attention to the positive argument. If we were called upon to prove the proposition that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is parabolic, it would be natural to cite the concurrent judgment on this point of the great mass of scholars for many centuries. As this, however, while standing alone, would not be conclusive, it would be preferable to furnish reasons for the opinion held which are drawn from the Scriptures. In doing so, three facts might be cited with propriety and force.

1. The narration is given in precisely the manner in which it would be were it a parable, as we claim that it is.

2. There is in it nothing inconsistent with the idea that it is such, since it is perfectly admissible, in writings of this class, to speak of things which are purely fictitious as though they had actually transpired.

3. Its statements are such that it must either be regarded as parabolic, or else the Lord would be found guilty of an inaccuracy, as it regards the nature of disembodied spirits, which would be altogether unpardonable in one possessing his information, i. e., he would represent those who have entered upon the other world as possessing those bodily organs which are of great use here, but could be of none there. We speak of the eyes, the tongues, and the fingers, which he gives to Dives and Lazarus, the former being in the torments of hell, and the latter in the joys of Abraham's bosom. But it is submitted that such appendages do not belong to disembodied spirits, and, therefore, that it cannot be an historic verity that Dives, who was at least possessed of ordinary sharpness in this life, should have so far lost his shrewdness in the one to come as either to suppose that he was still possessed of the physical organ of taste, or that he had in the place of it a spiritualistic one, which was parched in the flame, and which could be cooled by the application of natural water. And it is also submitted that to speak of spiritualistic water would be the height of nonsense.

Should it be objected to the reductio ad absurdum* resorted to in the last proposition referred to above, that the men in question did really possess their natural organisms, having been resurrected for the purpose of entering upon reward or punishment, it would only be necessary to reply, that he who would resort to this stratagem in order to defend the doctrine of the historic verity of the narrative, would do so at the expense of the argument for personal consciousness in the spirit world. For if Dives and Lazarus were indeed resurrected men, then what is said of them applies to that class only, and proves nothing concerning the intermediate state of the dead.

Having thus, as we believe, successfully established the view that the portion of Scripture which is at present engrossing our attention is not literal but figurative in its character, it is time to proceed to the determination of its real value in the decision of those questions which relate to the conscious state of the dead. As there is a large class who are agreed with us in pronouncing the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus to be a parable, but who, as we think, err, nevertheless, in making it largely the basis of their faith in an intermediate state of the dead, it becomes necessary to examine their reasons for so doing. If we rightly apprehend them, the principal one is found in the fact that somehow it is difficult for them to believe that the Lord would, for any purpose whatever, represent individuals as speaking and thinking under circumstances where such speaking and thinking would be out of the question. In other words, that if the dead be really unconscious, it would not be proper for him, under any circumstances, to represent them as holding converse, reasoning, etc., as did Dives and Lazarus. Now, therefore, as these individuals regard the word of God as the standard of morals, it will be sufficient for them if their difficulties can be met and removed by citations from that word. They will also agree that in this particular it would be perfectly proper for Christ to do and say that which the Holy Spirit inspired prophets and good men at any time to do and say. But this being true, proof in abundance can be brought forward to show that their scruples are altogether unfounded.

Take for example, the language which Isaiah puts in the mouth of the dead when the great king of Babylon descended into the grave: "Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." Chap. 14:10, 11. Now every person knows that, physically speaking, it would be altogether out of the question for the dead to address one who was about to come among them; but at the same time it is readily perceived by all, from the consection, that the utterances of the writer are parabolic or at least figurative, and therefore admissible.

Again: take the parable of the trees which conversed together over the matter of selecting a king. Judges 9:8-15. Almost any child knows that what is said in regard to their utterances one to another was literally untrue; and yet Jotham, without qualification or explanation, declares that they spake one to another. Did he therefore falsify? All must agree that he did not. Why? Simply because it was manifest to all his hearers that he was employing a parable—or, if you please, an apologue—wherein it was generally understood that it was legitimate for the person using the same to employ fictitious characters, and to attribute to them powers which they naturally could not possess, and actions which they never performed. But words need not be multiplied. Deny this prerogative to the allegorist or parabolist, and you have destroyed his art. Concede it to him by common consent, and it remains a power for good, while, no moral principle is in the least disturbed thereby.

Having seen that the objection urged against giving the parable fictitious features is not well taken, since it is justifiable in all such writings to give full play to the fancy in the creation of characters and incidents, it is time to inquire for additional reasons for insisting that it was in any way designed to emphasize the conscious state of the dead. If they can be rendered at all, it is difficult to see from whence they are to be drawn. A single glance at the discourse of the Lord will show that the idea which he sought to make prominent was, not the fact of the life hereafter, but unquestionably that of the proper estimation of riches in this life. It is shown by the context that he was addressing the Pharisees, than whom there were no greater sticklers for existence between death and the resurrection, as well as thereafter. There was, therefore, no need that he should enlarge upon that point. Nor was he in a mood to propagate their pet theory in order to curry favor. He had just been reproving them for avarice, and the character of Dives, rolling in wealth, and clothed in the luxurious garb of an oriental millionaire, furnished him a fitting instrument for the illustration of another phase of the property question. It was the inordinate admiration for men of wealth which he sought to condemn. To this condemnation all the language employed, and the figures used, were made to contribute. This was the objective point of the parable. Everything else was simply auxiliary to the work of reaching that object.

To say, therefore, that one of the auxiliary statements which the Lord employed was so used, because of the desire to indorse the doctrine contained therein, would be equivalent to saying that all of the auxiliary statements were made for the same purpose. To insist upon this, however, would place those urging such a view in a most unenviable position. For, unfortunately for them, the Lord not only spoke of men, but he also spoke of places. He declares just as emphatically that the angels took Dives and Lazarus respectively to hell and to Abraham's bosom, as he does that they existed at all. Now, therefore, if the logic be correct, it must be true that these places do actually exist somewhere, and that the Lord designed to inculcate that fact. Saying nothing about the former, where is the expounder of Scripture sufficiently intelligent to locate, and courageous enough to advocate the existence of the latter? The expression "Abraham's bosom" is used in the word of God in but one connection: and that is the one under consideration. Never before, nor never after this instance, was it employed. Hereafter it will be shown that it was purely the creation of a Pharisaic brain, and that the whole theory concerning it was too monstrous to be entertained for a moment.

But again: it is distinctly stated that in the future life portrayed by our Lord, there was but a gulf between the righteous and the wicked, and that so narrow that conversation could be carried on across it, and that the eyes of the good and bad respectively could take in the situations and circumstances of each other. He, therefore, who would insist that the bare mention of Dives and Lazarus by the Lord proves their existence in the spirit world, must, if he would be consistent, insist that the existence of the gulf is a fixed fact, and that the righteous and the damned, in the world to come, are in such close proximity that the former can hear the groans of the latter, and the latter can listen to the songs of the former. But who, in this age, will venture to advocate so repulsive a notion? Nevertheless, this is the strait to which those are driven who seek to employ the parable in the interests of natural immortality.

But that which proves too much, proves nothing at all. We leave, therefore, this branch of the subject, feeling that a line of argument which drives those who employ it into the indorsement of such absurdities, refutes itself so perfectly that it demands no further attention.

*a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory.