The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

AS HE many times does nothing but injury who unsettles the opinions of others by destroying their confidence in their previous modes of Scripture exegesis, without enabling them to substitute therefore a more satisfactory exposition, it is now time that we should pass over to the positive side of the argument, and furnish an interpretation of the parable in question which shall be less liable to objection than the one which we have been combating. To promise one which shall be altogether free from any difficulty whatever would be more than could be fulfilled, and more than a reasonable student of the Scripture would demand at the hands of any person who was dealing with passages so highly figurative as the one before us. Nevertheless it would seem to be comparatively easy when in the line of sound interpretation to present a view which would, when taken as a whole, do violence to no principle of morals and no canon of sound doctrine. In fine, he should be able to so explain this portion of the word that his explanation would not make it conflict with other parts of the same word, and would at the same time commend itself to the judgment of the unbiased reader.

In this case, as in many others, it will be found profitable while considering the text to closely study the context. In doing so, it will be seen that the Lord had been delivering the parable of the wise steward, which bears directly upon the question of the proper use of the means that God has given us in this life, in order to make them contribute to the welfare of the individual in the life to come. Whether or not the object of the Master was the condemnation of the Pharisaic notions on that subject, it is at present impossible to say. One thing is manifest, however, viz., that they immediately took exceptions to his teaching upon that point. It is even said that they were present, and that they derided him because they were covetous. This language would seem to imply that they were wounded in a vulnerable point; and as the bird which flutters immediately after the discharge of the sportsman's gun is presumably the one at which he directed his piece, so, in this case, the derisive responses of the Pharisees would seem to indicate that they themselves were not only the persons who felt the sharp point of the missile of truth, but also that they were conscious of the fact that it was hurled at them.

Nor does it appear that Christ was anxious to relieve their minds of the suspicion that they were the individuals to whom his words had been especially directed; for, instead of softening his previous utterances in the least, or attempting to explain that they were not designed to be personal in their application, he meets their irate denunciation by the stern declaration: "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." The reference in these words is unmistakable.

The subject of conversation was the parable of the steward. The point of that parable was the proper use to which money may be put in this life. It was, therefore, in reference to the peculiar views which the Pharisees held upon that subject that the Lord was particularly condemnatory. What those views were, it is not difficult to ascertain. One of their distinguishing characteristics as it regards their estimation of money is brought to view in the declaration that, as a class, "they were covetous." Another may be found in the writings of those who are competent to set forth their tenets in the statement that with them it was customary to regard the possession of wealth as an evident token of the favor of God; while poverty was considered as conclusive evidence that the person subjected thereto was accursed of Heaven.

It was, we think, at the sin of covetousness, which was so marked in them, that the parable of the unjust steward was aimed. We are also of the opinion that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was especially designed to condemn and utterly root out the foolish and pernicious idea contained in their second peculiar notion, wherein they held that riches were a manifest token of divine favor. The reasons for these conclusions are found both in the nature of the parable itself, and the connection in which it was uttered. A glance at the context will make it apparent that the persons in the immediate presence of the Saviour were, beyond reasonable doubt, the very ones whom he had just condemned for being avaricious. Having spoken a few words relating to other matters, perhaps for the purpose of getting the multitude into a more favorable position or mood, he seems to have picked up again the subject of property, and, as we have already said, to have made a final and overwhelming assault upon the second feature named above. In doing this, he had recourse to a style of logic, which, for the purposes then to be accomplished, was most perfect in its adaptation, i. e., the argumentum ad hominem. In other words, he framed a parable, which, constructed as it was in the use of characters common in every community, and in the employment, so far as its theology was concerned, wholly of doctrines which were parts of their distinctive faith, forever precluded the Pharisees themselves from evading the conclusion drawn on account of the unsoundness of any one of the premises given.

By this master-stroke of policy, he at once placed his adversaries in a position where it was utterly impossible for them to vindicate their peculiar tenet without self-stultification, through a denial of positions formerly held, or subjecting themselves to the contempt of the people, who were composed of the poorer classes, by taking the broad position that the poor could not be saved at all, and therefore that the parable of the Lord was absurd and impotent in the matter of proving that an abundance of this world's goods was not a vindication of God's favor. For had they admitted that Christ could have been justified, in any contingency, in placing Lazarus the beggar, covered with sores, and kept alive by continued charity, in Abraham's bosom, that fact would have forever overturned the doctrine that he was accursed of God as proved by his indigence, since immediately upon death he was exalted to the highest position attainable by mortals in the favor of Heaven. Again, had they confessed that it was possible for the rich man at death to go directly to hell, then this would have been an admission that the luxuries which he enjoyed in this life had in reality furnished no proof that God loved him, since at death he poured upon him the vials of his unmitigated wrath.

What, then, could they do? We answer as above, Only one of three things. First, either admit that they were mistaken in their interpretation of worldly prosperity; or, second, boldly declare that the poor could not be saved or the rich lost; or, third, deny that they ever held the doctrine found in the parable in regard to the place and character of the intermediate state. Had they taken the first position, this would have been a complete surrender of the point at issue, and virtually an acknowledgement that they could not thereafter be regarded as safe religious teachers. Had they taken the second then they would have been driven to a conclusion which was the necessary consequence of their own logic, if sound, but which they, perhaps, were not prepared to adopt, not only because of their own misgivings, but also because, if done publicly, they doubtless would have been handled roughly by the irritated multitude whom they would thus have insulted in a most aggravating manner by consigning them to hopeless and eternal ruin upon no other proof than that of the fact of their acknowledged poverty.

Nor is it at all improbable that this last consideration of prudence would have been sufficient to close their mouths perfectly on that branch of the subject, since, on a former occasion, like considerations had produced the same result. Reference is here had, as the reader will readily perceive, to the visit made to Christ by certain of the chief priests and elders who asked him concerning the authority by which he did his works. He, desirous of confounding them, replied, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from Heaven or of men." They, perceiving his object, reasoned among themselves on this wise: "If we shall say, From Heaven, he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe on him? But if we shall say, Of men, we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet." Therefore, abashed and dumbfounded, they answered in these humiliating words, "We cannot tell."

Finally, had they, as a last resort, attempted evasion by adopting the third position suggested above, their failure would have been as complete as in either of the other cases. Christ, in his purpose to make them destroy their own theological tenets, by their own theological weapons, had left no opportunity for side issues. So careful had he been to overthrow them on their own chosen ground, that he employed simply those dogmas, which, from time immemorial*, had been the shibboleths* of their faith. Their doctrines concerning hades, though they might have been in reality crude and unsound, were too generally understood to admit of public denial. And, as the Lord was not seeking at the moment either to affirm or deny the correctness of their opinions in regard to that place, but simply to confound them out of their own mouths, he employed a portion of their own faith for that purpose. To show that in doing so he was true to their conceptions, and that his parable was based upon those conceptions purely, and not upon any views personal to him, we shall give in our next an extract from one of the most eminent of Jewish historians, one, also, who was himself a Pharisee and a contemporary of Christ.

*immemorial: originating in the distant past; very old.

*shibboleth: a custom, principle, or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people, especially a long-standing one regarded as outmoded or no longer important.