THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS
By Otis Q. Sellers
The portion of Scripture which is examined and
interpreted in this study is certainly not the most important passage in the
Word of God. Nevertheless, it is apparent that many make Luke 16:19-31 to
be the pre-eminent passage of all Scripture, because of the great number of
doctrines which they found upon it and which they established by it.
When a passage is appealed to, again and
again, in support of ideas that are held or are being declared; that passage
automatically becomes one of great importance. And there is no single
passage in the Bible that is appealed to, in support of as many beliefs, as the
one that is now before us for consideration. The commonly accepted and
popular belief that is held by the self styled orthodox concerning man’s nature
and destiny, has entrenched itself within this story. From this
supposedly impregnable fortress, it calls up on all to drop all arms and
surrender if they dare to believe or teach contrary to the generally accepted
views. For many centuries, ideas have been read and preached into this
passage, so that now many are reading them back out to see if they were
actually there. Many preachers are no longer able to distinguish between
their sermons on the rich man and Lazarus and the records written in the Word
of God, even though they are poles apart.
Over a period of many years, it has been
my happy and fruitful labor to examine with microscopic exactitude, every one
of the 859 passages in the sacred Scriptures that give testimony concerning the
soul. Careful analysis of every one of these passages,
has resulted in the inescapable conclusion that the Bible teaches that man is
a soul, not that he has a soul; as is generally believed. That man has
a soul is the platonic theory; that man is a soul is the Biblical
testimony. Furthermore, the studies have demonstrated that there is no
such thing in Scripture as the immortal soul, or a never-dying soul.
However, in seeking to present these findings to others, I discovered that with
many, the effort is useless; for they firmly believe that the story of the rich
man and Lazarus, which does not mention the word soul, stands in opposition to
all that I have found to be true and try to teach.
Over the same period of time, I have
given much thought to the task of discovering all the truth that God has
revealed concerning human destiny and future punishment. But all that I
have found is considered by many to be of no value, and the labor expended is
regarded as being wasted effort; for they feel that all we need to know about
these subjects is presented in condensed form in the story of the rich man and
Lazarus. This passage is their vade
mecum, a passage which they allowed to dominate and control the
interpretation of the greater part of Scripture.
Out of a collection of literature that
deals with this portion, it can be seen that this passage is constantly
appealed to so as to prove that man has a soul; and that the soul is immortal;
that death is another form of life; that death is simply life in another place;
that death is the continuation of life; and that at death, a man is ushered
into ineffable bliss or frightful woe. It is used to prove that
punishment begins the moment a wicked man dies, and that the punishment is by
means of literal fire; and that the lost are tormented by fire
internally. It is used to describe the nature of punishment between death
and resurrection, and is also used to show the nature of punishment after
resurrection. It is supposed to show the punishment a man undergoes
before he is judged, and it is also used to portray his punishment after he has
had his day in God’s court. It is used to prove that the dead are not
dead at all, but alive and fully conscious. In fact, this passage is used
to deny all that the Old Testament says about death!
This story has constantly been used to
flay the rich and glorify the poor. It has been used by the clergy to
keep the poor in subjection so that they will not desire the things enjoyed by
the rich. By it, men have ‘proved’ that there is inherent evil in riches,
and great virtue in poverty.
This story is the basis of the idea that
Hades is the place of disembodied souls. The theory of Hades as being a
place of two compartments is founded entirely upon it. It is appealed to,
so as to show that paradise is one compartment in Hades even though the word
paradise is not found in it. It is used to prove that paradise and
Abraham’s bosom are one and the same. In fact, this passage is the basis
of almost every idea held today concerning the intermediate state, that is, the
state of men between the time of death and resurrection.
Many there are who insist that in this
story we find the one place where our Lord drew aside the veil and permitted
man to see the conditions that exist on the other side of death―that
here we have the record of the condition; the experiences; and even the
conversation of those who have died.
I repeat, there is no single passage in
all the Word of God, that is used to support as many different doctrines and
ideas as the story of the rich man and Lazarus. And if all these
various doctrines and ideas are taught here, then all must agree that without
doubt, this stands as the most important and far-reaching revelation of truth
in the Bible! Indeed then, this should be the vade
mecum of the Christian; something that should be committed to memory so
that it is always with him and never out of his thoughts. But, of course,
if we accept this judgment as to the importance of this position, it will leave
us in a quandary that the greatest revelation of truth in the Word of God was
given by Christ to men who were unwilling to do his will; for this message
was delivered to the covetous and mocking Pharisees! This fact alone
should cause every lover of truth to be somewhat hesitant in accepting the
confident assertion of many that in this story, the Lord drew aside the veil,
and provided a glimpse of the experiences of men on the other side of
death.
As one whose life is devoted to
understanding, believing, and teaching the Word of God; I can say in all
sincerity that if the story of the rich man and Lazarus teaches all the things
that have been set forth above; then I too want to be found believing in, and
teaching them. If, as so many claim; this passage is to be
understood literally and regarded as a narration of actual events, then I want
to accept as facts every idea that it sets forth. However, long and
careful study of this passage has brought the conviction that these things are
not taught in it, and that it is not a narration of actual events that had
taken place.
There are many who use this passage as a buttress,
using it only in support of what they believe. Yet, if they actually went
to it to find the truth, as they claim to do; they would find
that if this is a narration of actual history, then it teaches many
things which they would quickly reject! This story, if it is
actual history, makes future blessings to depend upon present poverty, and not
upon one’s relationship to God through Jesus Christ. And if a man should
desire to teach that positions in the life to come, will be just the reverse of
those in this life; he could find ample support for it by appealing to verse
twenty-five of this portion.
It is a simple matter for one to adopt a
doctrinal position and then go to the Bible to find support for it. The
last place to which men turn is to the Bible. And, if upon turning to it,
they find that it speaks contrary to what they think; they will turn to it
again and again in the hope of finding something that can be used to sustain
their opinions. This is the Balaam spirit in Bible study. They
consult the Scriptures as Balaam consulted God. His own prejudices
led him to try once more “what the Lord will say,” to see if he could not find
something more in line with his preferences in the matter. Those who are
all of this spirit cannot refrain from imposing their own conceptions upon the
Word of God. They soon convince themselves that a passage contains
certain things that are not even remotely intimated in it. In view of
this, it will be well at this point for us to read carefully and honestly the
story of the rich man and Lazarus.
Luke 16:19-31
19 There was a certain rich man, which was
clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And
there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of
sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs
which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his
sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by
the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in
torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in
his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water,
and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son,
remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy
good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and
thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great
gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can
they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then
he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest
send him to my father's house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify
unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham
saith unto him, They have Moses
and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay,
father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the
dead.
God’s
word
is a rock—indeed a precious stone that will stand any amount of scrutiny.
It is a Lamp unto our feet, and it is not extinguished by examination. It
welcomes investigation. It calls upon men to think upon it. If men
will cease taking themselves so seriously and accept God’s statement that, “we
can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth” (2Cor. 13:8), they will
not be so fearful of the task of plunging into the study of the Word of
God. It may be deep, but if need be, I prefer to drown in it rather than
to be battered to death by the waves of human ignorance; error; superstition;
and opinion. Those who meditate upon the Word of God day and night are
called blessed.
Inasmuch as the story of the rich man
and Lazarus is, by most Christians, allowed to negate the entire Old Testament
revelation as to man’s destiny; this passage demands the most minute
examination and prolonged meditation. It is dishonest to build upon this
passage if this is not done. Many who permit this portion of God’s word
to dominate and control the interpretation of the remainder of Scripture seem at
times to show an amazing unfamiliarity with just what is said in it.
All who honestly examine this passage
will find that innumerable questions, problems, and difficulties arise as a
result. These demand full consideration before we can rest assured that
we have discovered the true interpretation of this portion of the Word of God.
In this story, we have the written
record of the spoken words of the Lord Jesus. There can be no doubt
concerning this. The translation, with a few exceptions, is acceptable;
therefore, if we use only the King James Version, [smile--Ed] we can
rest assured that we have before us what our Lord said.
Note: The words, “fared sumptuously every day” need
to be more accurately translated to avoid the idea of feasting or banqueting
which is not in the Greek. It has been better rendered as follows: “who
every day and lived in pleasure and luxury,” Fenton; lived sumptuously
everyday,” ―Moffitt; making merry day by day, brilliantly,”
Rotherham; “living luxuriously and in a magnificent style
every day,” ―Wuest. The word beggar and
first twenty should be “poor man”; the word “hell” in verse 23 should be
“Hades”; and “Son” in verse 25 should be “Child.”
Our task, then, is to discover what the
Lord meant by the things he said―just
what his purposes were in relating this story. These words express his
thoughts on this occasion, and from them we must discover what he was thinking.
Most men feel that this is an exceedingly
simple task, for they hold this story to be the simple, straight-forward,
matter-of-fact history of actual events that took place before the birth of
Jesus, and which he witnessed before his incarnation. They insist that
the story is literal history, reported by the Lord for the purpose of revealing
the conditions that exist beyond death.
Yet, those who take this position will
never go through with it. They dare not to follow their position out to
all its conclusions and accept all its consequences. They will not carry their
idea of “historic reality” into every detail. There is always a lapse
into the figurative or assumptive. Their position breaks down when they
face the actual reality of the poor man being carried by the angels into
Abraham’s bosom. They know not what to do with the statements which indicate
that the rich man had eyes and a tongue and that Lazarus had a finger.
They cannot fit these bodily parts in with their ideas of “disembodied
spirits.”
The Rich Man
In many sermons that are preached on
this message, this rich man is presented as being exceedingly vile, and is set
forth as a representative sinner. There is no such picture here, and our
Lord exercised care that no idea of great wickedness is set forth. That
would have spoiled the picture he is drawing. Although we know of this man is
that he was rich, and wore expensive clothing, and that he lived luxuriously
every day. This is all we know of him, and it is very little. There
is not enough here to form any true estimate of his character, since the facts
given deal with his state. They reveal nothing of his character.
As Trench says: “He was one of whom all
may have spoken well; all of whom none could say worse than that he was content
to dwell at ease, would fain put far from himself all things painful to the
flesh, and surround himself with all things pleasurable.” (Notes on the
Parables of Our Lord, by Richard Chenevix Trench,
D.D. (Fleming H. Revell,
New York) Page 346)
In our smugness and self-righteousness,
we are apt to think that the statements describe a great sinner like Ahab or
Judas Iscariot; but that is wholly imaginary. The average middle-class
American of today probably dresses better, eats better, and enjoys comforts far
beyond what this man ever dreamed. We do not judge a man’s character to
be bad when we discover that he is rich. Neither do we judge a man as
wicked because he dresses well. And while we may question the wisdom of
living luxuriously and splendidly, we do not question its morality. Why
then should the man in this story be judged as flagrantly wicked? Do we
dare to calumniate one whom our Lord did not? True it is that he may not have
fed the beggar, but even of this, we cannot be sure.
We are not told how this man gained his
wealth, so, if we desire to be among those who “impute not evil” let us not say
that his riches were gained dishonestly. Our Lord gave no revelation concerning
this, and Abraham made no such accusation when he spoke to him. In view
of this, a simple quatrain fits well here:
Be sure that you have Scripture,
For all you say or do;
And where God’s Word is silent,
May you be silent too!
It is evident that our Lord desire to
set forth a composite picture of the rich and powerful men in
Israel at that time, especially the Pharisees, but also the
Sadducees, the scribes, lawyers and priests. Let us not be guilty of
taking from or adding to His picture.
The Poor Man
The next character set before us is a
poor man, a man in desperate need. In many studies, this poor man is
represented as being a godly man; a devout man; a saint. But there is no
such betrayal in the words of our Lord. He sets him forth as a poor man,
one afflicted all over his body with ulcerating sores, but nothing more than
this. Our to have Lord seems to have exercised
care in avoiding any such picture of this man. There is not one single
fact revealed about this poor man that would bring forth admiration or
compliment. His condition arouses our sympathy, but we see nothing about
him that is worthy of emulation. We would not dare to advise anyone to
pattern there life after he is, nor can we point to him and say, “Go thou and
do likewise.” We would feel more rapport with him if we had been told
that he looked to God to supply his needs, rather than to a rich man for
crumbs. We wonder if God’s provision of prayer had a place in his
life. From what we are told, and we know only that his expectation was in
the rich man.
Some who read
these lines, will feel that I am treating this poor man somewhat harshly.
I admit this, but hasten to say that this does not arise from lack of feeling
and sympathy for him. It springs only for my desire to maintain the true
picture the Lord gave of him, and to counteract the false picture of great
godliness that men are so prone to paint of him.
It must be admitted that there are some
things about the rich man that deserve censure. He dressed too well and
lived luxuriously, but, all in all, he was not a bad character. But while
there are things about him we might condemn, there is not one thing about the
poor man we can condemn or admire. There is no known fact about him that
suggests a righteous man or a man of faith. If he had lived in David’s
time, David could not have written his great testimony:
“I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,
nor his seed baking bread.” (Psalm 37: 25)
The reader can confirm all that has been
said about these two men by carefully reading the words of the Lord. The
honest seeker for truth cannot accept the idea that this is a story in which
the righteous and the wicked are set in contrast. There is nothing
revealed concerning the rich man that even suggests great wickedness, and nothing
revealed about the beggar that suggests righteousness. The rich man is no
picture of the sinner. The beggar gives no picture of the saint.
Their Death
As the story continues, we find that in
the course of time the poor man died, and was carried by the angels into
Abraham’s bosom. Here, greater questions present themselves. Is
this an actual historical record? Are we to understand is
literally? If not, then how is it to be understood? Did the angels
actually carry the dead Lazarus? If one should say, “A man died in the
street and friends carried him home” what would this mean? Shall we
understand this to mean one thing and the statement concerning “the poor man”
to mean another thing?
It is just at this point that those who
insist on the historical reality of this passage want to inject the ideas of a
soul” or “disembodied spirit.” But how does one carry a soul and why would a
soul need to be carried? No such idea is conveyed by the words of our
Lord. It was the poor man who was laid at the rich man’s gate, it was the
poor man who died, and it was the poor man who was carried by the angels.
This is the first and only reference in
the Bible to “Abraham’s bosom.” This term presents a new problem; one which
many solve by saying that this is a new name for heaven or for paradise.
But if this is true, why is it never used again? And if, as many insist,
it speaks of some compartment in a mythological Hades where the spirits of the
righteous dead are supposed to be between death and resurrection, then why is
it suddenly given this name? Furthermore, what was it called for several
thousand years before the time of Abraham? Even the superficial student
must admit that there is something strange about this term and its sole
appearance in this passage.
Next, we are told that the rich man died
and was buried. There are so many who feel that the words of our Lord
here needs some polishing. They insist that it was not actually “the rich
man” who died, that was the rich man’s body, and that the rich man was
not buried; only his body was buried.
After the declaration that the rich man
died and was buried, we get this picture of his condition. “in Hades he lift up his eyes, being in torments.” As
the story continues, we find that he is in the same general locality as Abraham
and Lazarus, and that his sufferings are greatly intensified as he looks across
the gulf and sees Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom. From this,
it is seen that even though the distance between them was great, yet it was
within seeing and speaking distance, since he saw them and carried on a
conversation.
If the rich man could see them in bliss,
then they must have been able to see him being tormented. And if, as some
hold, his torments were shut off from their view, they could still hear
them. In view of this, can anyone believe that Abraham and Lazarus were
supremely happy while they looked upon a man being tormented and heard his
pleadings for a few drops of water? To hear a tormented man pleading for
water would cause supreme distress to any sensitive person. Calloused
indeed would be the man who could be in bliss under these conditions. No
wonder that those who hold to the literal interpretation of this portion
conveniently arranged to close out Hades as the place of both good and bad, and
move the good to heaven a few months after these words were spoken.
Note: See Scofield
Reference Bible notes on “Hades since the ascension of Christ” (page 1099) for
a brief summary of this teaching.
Those who can get joy out of the
sufferings of others, those who can find pleasure in a scene of suffering, are
sadistic! Sadism is one form of insanity. Can we believe that
Abraham’s nature had been so changed that he could be in bliss while witnessing
the sufferings of another in hearing his plea for some slight relief? I
fully believe that my own nature is such that if I had been there, I would’ve
made some attempt to alleviate this man’s suffering even if I had plunged into
the great gulf in the attempt. I trust that I will always be willing to
risk the loss of my own comforts if by so doing I can alleviate the suffering
so another.
Their Conversation
The conversation between the rich man
and Lazarus is one of the strangest to be found in the Bible. The rich
man, seeing Abraham a far off and Lazarus in his bosom, called to him,
addressed him as “father Abraham” and pleaded with Abraham to have mercy on
him. This causes many questions to arise: Why did he appeal to
Abraham? Was Abraham the chief man in that place? Was Abraham
tormenting him? Was Abraham withholding water from him? Did Lazarus
have a finger that could be dipped into water? Did the rich man have a
tongue that could be cooled by it?
The rich man did not cry out to
God. His plea was to Abraham, and his strange plea becomes even
more strange when it is considered in the light of Abraham’s
answer. Abraham addressed the rich man as “child”, and bade him remember
that during his lifetime he had received his good things and that Lazarus had
received his evil things, with the result that he is now comforted, while the
rich man is tormented.
This reply of Abraham presents a major
problem. How strange it is that when this man appealed for mercy he was
not reminded of any sin, wickedness or unbelief. He is not charged with
idolatry; with having oppressed the poor; of being a robber of other men’s
goods; of being a spoiler of orphans; or of being a persecutor of widows.
The only reply that is made, is that the rich man had
received his good things during his lifetime so he is tormented now.
If Abraham’s statement means anything;
if it teaches anything; then what else can it say but
those positions are surely reversed in the life to come?
But this is repugnant to every passage in the
Word of God that sets forth the things that affect a man’s destiny. From
Abraham’s lips came no accusations against the rich man and neither were there
any words of praise for the beggar. Their cases are summed up in the
statement that one got his good things during his lifetime while the other got
his evil things.
This statement of Abraham should cause
some serious thought. It cannot be lightly brushed aside as having no
bearing upon the suffering and bliss being experienced by these two. If
it has no bearing upon the matter, Abraham should not have said it. If it
was an answer; it was no answer at all! and our Lord
would not have reported it.
As I think on it, I consider my own life
to be one that has been filled with good things. I would be ungrateful
and unthankful to consider it otherwise. I was born in a good home, of
good parents, who loved me, and cared for me. I did not have it as easy
as children did today, yet my childhood was a happy one. My life as an
adult has been filled with innumerable good things. I have enjoyed good
health. My marriage has been a benediction. My testimony is,
“surely goodness and mercy have followed me all the days of my life.”
Now, does it follow that since my life has been filled with good things, the
life to come must be filled with evil things? And, if my life had been
just the reverse, filled with sorrow and evil from the day of my birth, would
this indicate that the life to come will be filled with good things?
“But Abraham said, Child, remembering that
thou thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and
likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted, and
thou art tormented.” (Luke
16:25)
We have every right to question why
Abraham said this. Was he wasting words on such a solemn occasion?
Why did he remind the rich man of something that had no relationship to his
suffering? Why did he refer to something that had no bearing upon the
bliss of Lazarus? The problem of why he said what he said is a major one,
but it all becomes even more puzzling when we realize that these words were
spoken by one who in his lifetime had been very rich (Gen 13:2), and whose life
had been filled with good things, even including personal dealings with
God. Does it not seem absurd, for a man whose life has been filled with
good things, to answer a man’s request for a few drops of water by reminding
him that he had received his good things during his lifetime? If the rich
man was to be reminded of the good things he had enjoyed, Abraham was the last
one who should have assumed the task.
The rich man’s plea was refused on two
grounds; the ground of previous good things and the ground of
impossibility. Abraham points out that in addition to the fact that he
had received good things; a vast chasm exists between them, “put there in order
that those who desire to cross from this side to you may not be able, nor be
able to cross from your side to us.”
After this refusal the rich man entered
a plea to Abraham that Lazarus should be sent to his father’s house to testify
to his five brothers, lest they should come into this place of torment. Abraham
answered this by telling their rich man and his five brothers had Moses and the
prophets, that is, the Old Testament and that they should hear them. The
rich man objects that this is not sufficient, they require more than this; that
they will believe if one returns from the dead. Abraham answered that if
they would not hear Moses and the prophets, they would not be persuaded though
one rose from the dead. And so ends the story.
Note: I have collected a great number of pamphlets,
magazine articles, and printed sermons which deal with the story. With
one or two exceptions, they all bear the same title, The Rich Man and
Lazarus. This is ideal, as no title could be more appropriate. But
most of these studies have subtitles, and these reveal definite bias in the
handling of this passage. They are usually in harmony with that which the
author of the treatise is trying to prove by this portion. They announced
in advance that the story is going to be made to teach a certain thing.
One subtitle is What Christ Taught About Hell; another
is, What Jesus Taught About Future Punishment. It would be just as honest
to say that this story is what Christ taught about the fate of the rich or
about the future home of the poor, or about the penalty of getting good things
in this life. Why see just one teaching in this passage? Does it not
teach about bliss as well as about torment?
This is the picture which many seem to
have pasted on their eyeglasses, and they put these on their eyes each time
they read or speak on this portion. But this picture is not in this
story. It contains no hint of God, and there is no one in it that
represents God. It contains no word concerning Christ or the work of Christ; no
one in the story stands for or represents Christ; there
is no sinner in it; and there is no great saint. There is nothing in it
that sets forth redemption or salvation, and no teaching as to how a man can be
justified in the sight of God. The only doctrine it contains in regard to
the cause of the rich man’s torment or the poor man’s bliss is repugnant to
every revelation of God’s righteous dealings with mankind. It sets forth
Abraham, himself a rich man, giving an irrelevant and meaningless answer to the
rich man, as he attributes his sufferings to be due to having lived a life of
good things, of which Abrahams own life was parallel!
These are the problems and difficulties that
arise from prolonged meditation upon and penetrating study of this
passage. They demand we discover some understanding of this portion so
that they no longer exist. It is imperative that we
discover the true character of this story and the real
purpose of Christ in telling it. When we do, all difficulties and
problems will vanish and this portion will shine forth with all the glory that
God has given to His Word that is now before us.
What Is The Bible?
The Bible is the Word of God. I
accept without question and fully believe in its plenary and verbal
inspiration. I take second place to no man when it comes to believing
that the Bible is God’s inspired Word. The more than 40 years I have given
to assiduously searching its pages permits me to speak with some authority in
regard to its character. This Book is God’s thoughts reduced to
writing. When thought is reduced to writing, it becomes literature.
Therefore, the Bible is literature; literature in its highest and best
form. It must always be treated as a literary production. Those who
ignore this are either ignorant, or else they desire this to be a book that can
be made to say what they desire it to say. That the Bible is literature can be
seen from this simple illustration:
If one should visit the largest library
in the world, there would be thousands of volumes in many languages. Yet,
there are only eight kinds of words in all these books. Even so it is
with the Bible. Every word in it is either a
noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, adverb, preposition, conjunction, or
interjection. These words are arranged in sentences according to
establish rules, called syntax. Every sentence has a subject and a
predicate. In other words, the Bible says something. In doing so,
it uses the means of communication that are common to man.
In communicating ideas there are many
ways of saying a thing. These ways of saying things are usually called
literary forms or rhetorical devices. For example, when things are said
poetically, the literary form is poetry; if they are said ironically, the
literary form is irony; and if they are said satirically, the literary form is
satire. Then there are also such forms as a fable (used so cleverly by Aesop),
parable, allegory, humor, proverb, and many others. All of these
rhetorical devices are found in the Bible.
Some of them, like parables and
allegories, are named in the Word itself. Most of them such as poetry are
so evident, that they can hardly be missed. Nevertheless, many of these
are flagrantly ignored because someone wants to use a figurative passage in
support of some doctrine which has no other support in the Word of God.
Note: An illustration of this is seen in the action of
the disciples when the Lord said: our friend Lazarus sleep if; but I go that I
may awake him out of sleep.” (John 11:11). They ignored his use of
metaphor and turn figure into fact, saying, “Lord, if he sleeps, he shall do
well. “ They did this because this was the way they want it to be, that
he was asleep, not dead. Our Lord straightened them out by saying
plainly, “Lazarus is dead.” In this time of God’s silence, we do not have the
Lord at our side to correct us when we turn figures into facts or facts into
figures.
In the interpretation of any passage, it
is essential that we determine what literary form, if any, is being used.
If we do not know, we will go astray. We must know how the Bible says
things in order to know what is being said. With this end in view, let us
examine a few of the literary forms found in God’s Book.
First and probably the most abundant of
all, is the actual historical narrative. An example of this is seen in
the record of the raising of Lazarus as set forth in John 11. Another is
the slaying of Goliath by David as set forth in 1Samuel 17. Next there is
poetry. Isaiah and Jeremiah all used the poetical method to give their
messages. The Psalms are quickly recognized as poetry, but many do not
see this in Isaiah and Jeremiah. Much of the poetic character of these
books is lost in the translation.
Then there is the parabolic method of
speaking. “All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitude in parables,”
is the divine description of this literary method (Matt
13:34). The writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke
abound in examples of this rhetorical device.
The Bible shows that some men spoke
their message by means of fables. There are fables in the Bible. By
“fable” I mean a narration intended to enforce a truth or precept, especially
one in which animals, plants, or even inanimate objects speak and act like
human beings. Jotham’s fable of the trees is the
oldest in all literature (Judges9:8-15). In fact, both satire and fable come
together in this narration.
Note: Dr. E. W. Bullinger
says that Judges 9:8-15 would be a fable, were it not explained in verse
16. I do not agree with this. The explanation is not needed if one has
read the seven verses that precede this fable. Would any want to say that
the parable of the tares among the wheat (Matt
13:24-30) would be a parable only if the Lord had not
explained it in Matt
3:36-3?
I agree with Joseph Addison, the English poet and essayist, that “Jotham’s fable of the trees is the oldest extant.” A study
of this narration will show that Jotham was an
outstanding satirist and fabulist.
And even though it is told as though it
actually happened, anyone who takes it to be literal history would come under
the censure of Proverbs 26:7 which, while spoken of a parable; is also true of
fable, satire, or allegory.
“The legs of the lame are not equal; so is a parable
in the mouth of fools.”
Note: The fool can never make a parable fit what it
was intended to illustrate. Thus even though the Lord erected safeguards
by saying, “ Unto what is the Kingdom Of God like, and whereunto shall I
resemble it?” as a preface to His parable, men ignore this and find likenesses
of the church, the gospel, Christendom, and numerous other things, but never in
the likeness of the Kingdom Of God.
On one occasion, Paul uses the
allegorical method to give his message, as Galatians 4:22-31 will show.
There is both humor and irony in some of
the statements made by Christ. But as J. B. Phillips, the translator has
said: “The unvarying solemnity of language makes it almost impossible for us to
realize either the irony or the humor of some of the things Christ said.”
Some of these ironical statements will be pointed out later.
That many literary forms are found in
the Bible, none can deny. Our question is therefore; what literary form
is used in the story of the rich man and Lazarus?
Is Luke 16:19-31 Historical Narration?
My conviction has already been stated
that these words of Christ cannot be treated as narration of actual
history. Nevertheless, there are those who strongly insist that since our
lord said, “There was a certain rich man” and “there was a certain beggar named
Lazarus” that these two men must have existed and that everything said about
them must have happened.
In the Bible, and narration or parable
told for the purpose of pointing out an important truth can begin with the
words, “there was” without a speaker actually vouching for its literality.
Several parables begin with these words, as can be seen Matthew
21: 33 and Luke 18:2. Furthermore, there is nothing
in the Greek to support the words “there was” at the beginning of this
story. It should read, “Now a certain man was rich.”
These words of our Lord could be a
parable, a satire, a fable, or a suppositional story, but it is impossible for
them to be a narration of actual history. Those who insist upon this will
back down the moment they come to the details of the story.
Some will insist that if we do not
accept this narration has been literal history, we will be guilty of making
void and destroying a portion of the Word of God. This reasoning is
false, as can be easily demonstrated.
A man would be foolish indeed to accept
the fable of the trees, as told by Jotham (see Judges
9:8-15) being literal history, even though Jotham
told the story as if it actually happened. Some may believe that the
story told to king David by Nathan (2 Sam. 12:1-4) was
actually history, but I do not. In fact, David was quite sure that Nathan
was reporting an actual occurrence until it called for the man to be put to
death who had done this file thing, and then Nathan said, “Thou art the man.”
It does not dishonor The Word of God in
the least to hold that these two men narrated events that never took
place. Therefore, it does not dishonor the Word of God to hold that the
events narrated in the story of the rich man Lazarus never occurred. Let
the diligent student read once again Judges 9:8-15, 2 Sam 12:1-4 and Luke
16:19-31, and he will see the truth of this. Jotham
told a suppositional story about trees and a bramble bush, and Nathan told a
story about a poor man, a rich man and a lamb. These were told for the
purpose of indicting and exposing the ones at whom their words were
directed. The story of the rich man and Lazarus is suppositional story
told by our Lord in order to indict, expose, and rebuke the Pharisees, and all
who were in league with them.
Is Luke 16:19-31 A Parable?
Suppositional stories can be parables,
but I do not believe that the story of the rich man Lazarus is a parable.
However, I would at this point repudiate the many foolish arguments that are
advanced by some who also insist that this is not a parable. There is a
marginal note to end the Scofield Reference Bible on
page 1098, which declares this is not a parable because, “In no parable is an
individual named.” Yet, as a chapter heading for Ezekiel 23, the
Scofield Bible gives, “The parable of Aholah
and Aholibah.” If there is any single passage
in the word that is manifestly a parable, it is Ezekiel 23: 1-4, and yet two
names are given in it. “Thus were their names;
Samaria is Ahola, and Jerusalem
Aholibah.” I think it would be well for all to read
this portion, then cease forever the puerile argument that Luke 16:19-31 cannot
be a parable because a man is named in it.
I have carefully considered the
position, set forth by many teachers, that this story is a parable. Some
have corresponded with me concerning this, and I have ever been sympathetic to
their arguments. It is evident that they are seeking some honest method
of understanding this story. They cannot accept this narrative as literal
history, since this conception throws it into conflict with the entire Old
Testament revelation concerning, Sheol, and the state
of men between death and resurrection. However, many of them err in their
attitude that if this is not a literal history, then it must be a
parable. They also note that there are only two literary forms in the
Word of God.
Those who declare that this is a parable
are forced to interpret it as a parable. Every attempt that has been made
to do this has been wholly unsatisfactory. In many cases, doctrines are
manufactured to fit the things set forth.
The Greek word, parabolē
means to cast alongside, that is, a placing beside for the purpose of
comparison. The story in a parable must be in all main points, parallel
to that which it is illustrating. Not everything in a parable needs to be
a representation, and some things are inserted for the purpose of carrying
along the story and linking together the points that do represent. This
can be seen in the parable of the tares among the wheat where the men who
slept, and the servants who inquired about the tares are passed over in the
interpretation given by our Lord.
In seeking to interpret the story of the
rich man and Lazarus as a parable, a great number of meanings have been set
forth for the figures and actions in it. A composite of these
interpretations would seem to be that the rich man represents faithless and
selfish
Israel; the fine clothing and sumptuous living is made to
represent God’s great provision for that people, and Lazarus is made to stand
for the publicans and sinners who were thrust outside of
Israel’s blessings by those in control. The deaths of
these two men are regarded as being
Israel’s national death which affected alike all classes of
the nation. The flames and torments are regarded as representations of
Israel’s present sufferings.
Other interpretations followed different
lines or differ in details. I have tried to consider all of these in my
study of this portion, but find them to be inadequate, incomplete, forced, and
quite often contrary to divine revelation. It is my conviction that to
treat Luke
16:19-31 as a parable
will only increase our difficulties, leave all our questions unanswered, and
all our problems unsolved. It forces upon us the task of trying to show
what each main character, event, action, and, represents. This is utterly
impossible, especially when we come to the conversation between Abraham and the
rich man, and the “five brethren “who were still on earth and not being
tormented.
Let it be said that if we reject the
idea that this story is literal history, and also reject the idea that it is a
parable, we have not yet exhausted all methods of interpreting it. There
are many other rhetorical device is used in the Word of God.
Is Luke 16:19-31 A Satire?
The word satire is a broad term and its
meaning is hard to encompass in a brief definition. As used in this study
satire means a literary form or rhetorical device, a type of writing were
speaking, wherein a suppositional story is told, the object of which is to hold
up vices, follies, ideas, abuses or shortcomings, by means of ridicule.
It is a literary form which is by most feebly understood, and it has fallen
into disrepute due to those who have grossly abused the use of it.
Nevertheless there are excellent examples of satire
in its most exalted form in the Bible, and our knowledge of this rhetorical
form can be greatly advanced by examining several of these
My own interest in this satirical method in literature was greatly
quickened in 1946 when my daughter Jane was approaching her final year in
college and was casting about for a theme upon which to write her graduation
thesis. I suggested that she write on “the satirical method of Lewis
Carroll,” an idea which she adopted. Her faculty adviser suggested that she
enlarge the subject to The Satirical Method in Literature.” It was at
this time that I began a study of satire in literature for my own purposes,
especially in the Bible.
The Satirical Fable in Judges 9:8-15
In order to appreciate any satire, one must be completely familiar with
the thing that is being satirized. This is a simple matter in the case of
Jotham’s satire, for the actual event that caused it
to be spoken, as well as the background for the event, is given in detail in
Scripture.
The man Gideon had placed the people of
Israel forever indebted to him because of his deliverance
of them from the bitter bondage of the Midianites.
His grateful countrymen offered to make him
king, but he declined. Nevertheless, he served
Israel as a captain and judge throughout his life. At
the time of his death, he had 40 sons, for he had many wives, also one son,
Abimelech, by a concubine. After his death, his good
works were quickly forgotten and his house and family were sorely neglected.
Soon after his death, Abimelech went to his mother’s brother in
Shechem and intimated that the 40 sons of Gideon we’re
going to take over the government of
Israel. And, as is so often the case, he had a
prearranged solution for the false alarm he had raised. He asked if it
were better to be reigned over by 40 or by one, and at the same time he
suggested himself as the one who should be the sole ruler in
Israel.
His words that accompanied this
suggestion – “remember also that I am your bone and your flesh” – were nothing
more than a promise that they would all enrich themselves at public expense
when he became king.
So the men of Shechem
supplied him with money with which he hired some worthless and reckless
followers, and in true dictatorial fashion, he went to his father’s house at
Ophrah and killed thirty-nine of his brethren upon one
stone. Only one, Jotham by name, was able to
hide himself and escape. Following this, the men
of Shechem made Abimelech
king, and the report of this was brought to Jotham.
Upon hearing it, Jotham
went and stood up and the top of the
Mount
Gerizim and cried out loud, “Hearken unto me, ye men of
Shechem, that
God may hearken unto you.” This man had something to say. His
purpose was to hold up their sin to exposure, ridicule, and condemnation.
The method he chose to do this resulted in one of the oldest and one of the
finest satirical fables to be found in all literature. Consider his words:
“The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they
said unto the olive tree, Reign out over us. But the olive tree said unto
them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honor God and man, and go
to be promoted over the trees?
And the trees said to the fig tree, Come thou, and
reign over us. But the fig tree said unto to them, Should I forsake my
sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Then said the trees unto the vine, Come thou, and a
reign over us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which
cheereth God and man, and go to the promoted over the
trees?
Then said all the trees unto the bramble, Come thou,
and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If in a truth ye
anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow; and if not,
let the fire come out of the bramble and devour the cedars of Lebanon.”
(Judges 9:8-15)
It can be seen that if this satirical
fable is treated as a parable, then we would need to find parallels for each
symbol in it; the olive tree, the fig tree, the grape vine, and the
bramble. Of course, we will have no problem concerning the bramble as it
points powerfully and directly to Abimelech, but the
rest of this fable fits nothing in history, as far as is known. However,
if we consider this to be a suppositional story, told in a satirical manner,
then we are not required to find parallels for the leading actors and events in
the story.
In fact, this story in
no way fits the course of Abimelech. The men of
Shechem had not gone out looking for a strong and
good man to be king over them, then upon being refused
by three such men, offer the kingship to an incompetent as a final
resort. It was Abimelech that
sought the position; the position did not seek him. It was not the case
of the bramble being asked by the trees, but just the reverse.
Therefore, we cannot treat this as a parable, as
Scofield suggests in his marginal notes; it must be
recognized as a satiric fable. Some will even be able to detect a
humorous strain in it when the bramble bush is made to say to the trees, “then
come and put your trust in my shadow.” Imagine, if you can, a cedar of
Lebanon finding refuge from the hot sun in the shade of a bramble!
Nathan’s Satirical Narration
We read of this in 2 Samuel 12:1-4:
“And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came
unto him, and said unto him, there were two men in one city; the one rich, and
the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor
man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had brought up and
nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did
eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was
unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveler unto the rich man, and he
spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring
man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for
the man that was come to him.”
This story is mild satire, told to
expose and rebuke king David. Is not harsh like
Jotham’s fable as its purpose is to correct and bring about
improvement. Scofield states that this also is
a parable, but such a conception creates impossible difficulties. In this
story, the outstanding event is the killing of the poor man’s lamb.
Without this, there would be no story, but there is nothing in the great sin of
David that is parallel to this. It is a simple matter to say as some do,
that the rich man represents David, the poor man represents Uriah,
the “exceeding many flocks” of the rich man represents David’s numerous wives,
and that the one little ewe lamb represents Bathsheba, the only wife of
Uriah. However, at this point in the story, all
representations go awry since it was Uriah (the poor
man) who was killed, and that she Bilhah (the little
ewe lamb) became the wife of David. If this were a parable, then, the
story would probably have been that the rich man murdered the poor man, stole
his lamb, and added it to his numerous flocks!
A very important principle is seen in this. The flow of a parable
must always be in harmony with that to which it is parallel, but in satire,
there is no such need. A satire is freer since it is not illustrating.
Since it points to things, but does not represent them, it is at liberty to
take off in any direction. It does not need to run parallel with that
which is exposing. Once we recognize that in the story of the rich man
and Lazarus, our Lord was speaking satirically, all difficulties will
disappear. However, before we give this detailed consideration, several
other principles related to our Lord’s words, must be established.
Elijah on
Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18:17-41
An important principle in divine revelation can be found in the record
of Elijah and the profits of Baal on
Mount Carmel.
Elijah seems to have been amused at the great physical efforts put forth by the
prophets of Baal in order to stir up their god and cause him to act. He
taunted them with these words of mockery and sarcasm;
“And it came to pass at
noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for
he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing,
or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth,
and must be awaked.” (1Kings
18:27)
Would anyone care to say that Elijah was
serious in this advice, that he actually believed that Baal may have been in
conference, or on a hunting trip, or taking a journey, or sleeping?
Could his statements be used to show that he believed that a god
called Baal actually existed, and that he would answer if he were roused from
his preoccupation? Of course not!
These are words spoken in mockery, and
they demonstrate that one of the greatest of all God’s prophets made effective
use of this sharp weapon to cut down the pretensions of those who worshipped
Baal, and who rejected the true God. And since it is true that Elijah
used the verbal weapons of sarcasm and mockery to demolish these false prophets,
then it presents no problem when we find that our Lord used weapons like these
against those who love money, who served mammon, and who made the Word of God
void by their traditions. Correct handling of the Word of God means that
we must recognize the true character of Elijah’s statements. How unjust to him
it would be to label his words, “Elijah’s conception of Baal.”
Careful studies of the rhetorical devices used
in the Word of God, will show that when men deal in sarcasm, irony, or satire;
they say things which are not at all expressions of what they believe.
The Ironical Statements of Christ
In the words of
Christ, we find certain statements that are sarcastic, ironical, and satirical
and should not be regarded as expressions of what He believed or taught.
Note: Irony is a kind of humor or light
sarcasm in which the intended implication is the opposite of the literal sense
of the words used. The distinguishing feature of irony is that the
meaning intended is contrary to that seemingly expressed
For example, the Pharisees came to the
Lord in Perea, Herod’s country east of
Jordan, and said; “Get thee out and depart from thence, for
Herod will kill you” (Luke
13:31). They represented this information as coming straight from
Herod, and their purpose was to frighten him from
Galilee into
Judea where he would be more in the power of the
Sanhedrin, which they controlled. In reply, he told them to go tell that
fox that He had three days of beneficent works yet to do and would remain in
Perea until his purpose had come to a full end. Then
he added:
“For it cannot be that a prophet should
perish anywhere except in
Jerusalem”
(Luke 13:3).
This statement is ironical. Its
humorous sarcasm should not be missed. Actually a prophet could perish
anywhere if the people turned against him. But so many prophets have been
slain in
Jerusalem that our Lord infers that this city has a virtual
monopoly on killing prophets! Our Lord states that he feels secure
as long as he is Herod’s country; since prophets have a place where they
perish, namely,
Jerusalem. How it must have stung the self-righteous
Pharisees who control everything in
Jerusalem for our Lord to say he felt secure in Herod’s
country since the only place a prophet could perish was in a city
controlled by them!
Note: Other examples ironical statements from
the lips of our Lord will be found in Matt
23:32 and Mark 7:9. Of Matthew 23:32, A. T. Robertson
says: “The keenest irony in this command has been softened in some MSS. to the
future indicative (plerosete). Fill up the measure of
your father’s; crown their misdeeds by killing the prophet God has sent to
you. Do at last what has long been in your hearts. The hour is
come! (Bruce).” Concerning Mark 7:9, Robertson again says:
“One can almost see the scribes withering under this terrible
arraignment. It was biting sarcasm that cut to the bone. The
evident irony should prevent literal interpretation as commendation of
Pharisaic perversion of God’s Word.”
False conceptions of Christ based mostly
upon the stylized character depicted in stained-glass windows, and religious
pictures, has caused many to feel that He was a listless man who never showed
real physical or mental energy. But He, who lashed the money changers
with the scourge of cords, lashed the Pharisees again and again with the
scourge of words.
There were times when our Lord took the very
words of men, even though false, and turned them back upon them. If men
are to be held responsible for their words, then He who will hold them
responsible has the right to use these words against them. This is seen in one
of his parables.
Note: He took false positions and principles as well
as words and turned them back against them. He did this by putting their
principles and positions into words. It is easy to find a hundred men
holding false positions and acting on false principles which not one of them
would dare to put into words.
Parable of the Pounds Luke 19:11-27
As the Lord traveled toward
Jerusalem, his disciples knew that his presence in the city
would create a major crisis. Hopefully they supposed among themselves
that the kingdom of god would immediately be manifested, solving all their
problems. In view of this he spoke a parable about a certain nobleman who
went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return.
Upon his departure he called his ten slaves and delivered to them equal sums of
money with the instruction that they should engage in some business enterprise
until he returned. There can be no doubt but that this nobleman
represents the Lord Jesus. Passing over some of the details in this
parable, let us consider the case of the slave who kept his pound wrapped in a
handkerchief. His explanation of his failure to transact any business
with the money trusted to him was:
“For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou
takest up that thou layedst not
down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.” (Lu
19:21)
The slave’s estimate of his lord was that he
was mean and grasping, also a thief; for He who picks up what he did not lay
down or reaps what he did not sew, ignores the simplest requirements of
honesty.
His lord did not deny the accusation or
bother to refute it. He accepted the slave’s declared estimate of his
character and said:
“Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee,
thou wicked slave. Thou knewest that I was an austere
man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping what I did not sow: Wherefore
then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at
my coming I might have required mine own with usury?” (Luke 19:22-23)
It is evident that we can build no doctrine concerning the character of
Christ upon this statement. Even though the nobleman in this parable is a
representation of our Lord, we repudiate any conception of him that might be
based upon these words. Did he not declare in another place that he was
meek and lowly in heart? Did he not instruct his own disciples to “lend,
hoping for nothing again” (Luke 6:5)? Did he not say that he came, not to
get, but to give? It is from statements such as these that we form our
conceptions of his character, not from Luke 19:22-23.
These words were not spoken for
teaching. They were spoken to reveal the utter falsity of the wicked
slave’s position. His master was not this kind of man, and the slave
did not believe him to be. He claimed he acted out of fear, but the truth
is that he was lazy. If he had really believed his lord to be grasping
and dishonest, he would have felt assured that he would welcome the opportunity
to get some exorbitant interest.
In this parable, the
nobleman is made to speak with sarcastic irony. From it we learn that we
can expect Christ to take the words of others, even though they
be false, and turn them back up on the one who uttered
them. There is much of this very thing in the story of the rich man and
Lazarus. Prolonged study of this portion which has extended over a period
of many years, during which I have read and considered most of the available
material that has been written on this portion, has resulted in the following
three convictions:
1. This
story is not a record of literal history, not even of literal history couched
in figurative language.
2. This
story is not a parable. My reasons for this conviction have already been
stated.
3. This
is a suppositional story. The events as set forth here never
happened. The literary device used by our Lord here is pure satire.
In fact we have in this story one of the finest pieces of satirical speaking to
be found in all literature. Furthermore, it is a scrupulously fair satire –
something which can hardly be found, if at all, in secular writings.
As suggested before, a basic necessity
for successful satire is that the reader or hearer be familiar with that which
is being satirized. This satire of our Lord was instantly intelligible to
his hearers in the days when these words were spoken. They were quite familiar
with their own wicked principles and purposes even though these were hidden
from others. They knew they were being scourged with their own
rods. Yet any objection they might have raised or any answer they might
have given would have served only to show openly that they understood what the
Lord was rebuking and that the truth had reached its goal.
However, while the satire was instantly
intelligible those at whom it was directed, it is not all intelligible to the
average reader today. His complete unfamiliarity with, and
misunderstandings about the conditions that existed, and the things taught by
the Pharisees in that day will mislead him into thinking that this story is a
historical narrative, or a parable.
Note: I remember as a boy, reading and
delighting in “Gulliver’s Travels” because of its fantasy, never once knowing
that it is a satire on man and his institutions. This was to be expected
since I knew nothing about the things being satirized by Jonathan Swift.
However, I did think he must have been poking fun at someone when he described
the scientists on Lagado trying to extract sunbeams
from cucumbers.
Since appreciation of any satire depends upon some degree
of familiarity with the thing being satirized, it is evident that the satirical
story about the rich man and Lazarus cannot be understood by those who are
ignorant of the situations and conditions that caused these words to be
spoken. Steps must be taken to correct the ignorance that exists
concerning these. Since many of these same conditions still exist today,
the satire has not lost its message of exposure and rebuke.
The Hearers
It will be helpful if we fix in our
minds certain well defined groups to whom the words of Christ were
spoken. These can be listed on the basis of their nearness to, or
distance from Christ.
1.
The Three. This group was made up
of Peter, James, and John. It was to them that the Lord granted the most intimate
revelation and visions.
2.
THE TWELVE. These were his
disciples who became apostles. They represent all who were learners in
the
school of
Christ. To these he gave Revelations that were simple and
expedient. If he used a parable in teaching them, he gladly explained it
at their request.
3.
THE PEOPLE. As described by Luke, this group was made up of those
who listened to his words and considered them diligently. They were
taught by him, and they heard him gladly, but they were never given as much as
were the disciples. Further light for them depended upon them taking their
place as disciples.
4. THE
MULTITUDE. This was the careless, confused mob. They were the
sensation seekers of their day. They trailed after Christ to see his
miracles, to be with the crowd, to get a meal, or just to see what might
happen. They accepted no teaching, they rejected no teaching. They
did not know what they desired. To them our Lord never spoke without a
parable (Matt.
13:34).
This does not mean that every word spoken to
them was a parable, but that in speaking to them he always included
a parable in the message. It is as if we should say of a speaker: “He
always uses illustrations, and never fails to use an illustration when speaking.”
5. THE
PHARISEES. This party dominated and controlled the group in
Israel which included the Sadducees, scribes, and priests.
They formed the aristocracy in
Israel. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were
doctrinally opposed to each other, but they were united in their enmity toward
Christ. Since the story of the rich man and Lazarus was pointed at the
Pharisees and their associates, it is essential that consideration be given to
their beliefs, practices, and character if we expect to understand this
satire.
The Pharisees
Of the three sects in Judaism at the
time of Christ, the Pharisees were the most powerful. The actual group is
believed to have numbered only about 6000, but this was the inner circle.
In the Gospels, the scribes, and Pharisees, are constantly mentioned in the
same connection, and in such manner as to imply that they formed the same
party. The strength of their influence was such that they dominated
everything in
Israel. They controlled the Sanhedrin, the priesthood, the civil courts,
and all Jewish society. The Sadducees opposed them, but their opposition
was so weak that the Pharisees tolerated it, knowing that the conservative
Sadducees would not push it too far, and that they had sufficient power to crush
it at any time.
The Pharisees had arrogated to their
party, all the right and authority that God had invested in the kings of
Israel. They were a plutocratic oligarchy exercising
all the kingly powers. This explains why the royal family was so
insignificant when Christ was born in the household of Joseph. The
Pharisees had taken to themselves the real work of the priests, that of
teaching the people, leaving the priests to carry on the empty ritual, which
without the true instruction was devoid of any meaning.
The inspired record of the four gospels
tells us much about the Pharisaic character. They were described by John
the Baptist as being a generation of vipers (Matt. 3:7); they made use of
calumny in dealing with those whom they opposed (Matt. 9:34); they did
not hesitate to murder to accomplish their ends and maintain their power (Matt.
12:14); they rejected all signs given by the Lord, then demanded a special sign
be given to them (Matt. 12:38); they transgressed the commandments of God by
their traditions (Matt 15:2); they were hypocrites (Matt. 23:3); all their
works were done to be seen of men (Matt. 232:5); they devoured widow’s houses,
then made long prayers in pretense (Matt. 23:14); they were lovers of
money (Luke 16:34); and they rejected the commandments of God in order that
they might maintain their own traditions
(Mark 7:9).
Having made void the Word of God, the
Pharisees had adopted most of the platonic philosophy concerning the nature of
man. From a mixture of Greek ideas and old Egyptian and Babylonian myths,
they had developed the doctrine of purgatory and of prayers for the dead.
Josephus declares that the Pharisees
taught that every soul is incorruptible, that only the souls of good men pass
over into another body, while those of the wicked are punished with eternal
suffering. They held that there is an immortal vigor in souls and that
under the earth, there are rewards and punishments for
those who have lived virtuously or viciously in this life.
Their shameful treatment of the poor in
Israel shows that they loved only themselves and not the
people or the country of
Israel. [Some things never change! -Ed] Long
before the time of Christ, the wealthy and ruling classes were taken to task by
the prophets for their cruel and unjust treatment of the poor. The
Pharisees held that the distinctions between poor and rich were part of God’s
plan, and they made poverty to be a virtue that would be rewarded with wealth
in the life to come. The Sadducees, on the other hand, had worked into
their beliefs, the idea that poverty was a crime; and that to be poor was
evidence of the displeasure of God!
One of the worst features of the
Pharisaic system was the expulsion or excommunication from the life of
Israel of those who had transgressed. At times, their
acts may have had some justification, but the Pharisees had carried it so far,
that once a man came under their strictures, there was no possible way for him
to get back again into the life of Israel. These were the “sinners” so
often mentioned in the Gospel records. As a rule, they were guilty of
nothing more than refusal to bow down to the despotic power exercised by the
ruling clique of the Pharisees.
Once a man brought down upon himself the
wrath of the Pharisees, there was no hope of pardon and they never forgave him.
Once excluded and branded as a sinner, no one dared to help him, or to do
business with him. The testimony of “sinners” was not valid in courts,
and if anybody wronged them, they had no recourse to law. They stood in
their miserable condition, as examples of what happened to any who challenged
the position or claims of the Pharisees.
In their distress, many of them were
forced to do business with or collaborate with the Roman occupation
forces. This paid them well, especially if they became tax-collectors
(publicans). This explains why a publicans and sinners are often linked
together in one group. They were shunned as traitors in
Israel. Nevertheless, there real character is seen in
th