III. Doctrinal Dogmas of Pharisees in Time of Christ

1. PLATONIC POSTULATES EMBRACED BY TIME OF CHRIST

Before we proceed to the parable, let us observe that this narrative was addressed to the Pharisees in particular, who were by now fully committed to the twin Platonic postulates of the immortality of the soul and the Eternal Torment of the wicked. The acceptance of these dual principles of Platonic philosophy and the consequent revolution in the theology of the Pharisees had transformed She’ol (and hades, its Greek equivalent) into an animated abode of disembodied spirits. It was now accepted as a place of throbbing life, instead of sterile death. And along with this, two characteristic terms used by the Pharisees—“Abraham’s bosom” and “Paradise”—were now tied into this Platonic picture.CFF1 242.2

Under the insidious inroads of Platonism such Jews had become declared Immortal-Soulists, as seen in several of the inter-Testamental apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books, and pre-eminently in Philo of Alexandria. (See pp. 718-740.)CFF1 242.3

But neither the Old nor the New Testament ever speaks of she’ol (or hades) as a realm of life. Only in the poetical imagery of Isaiah 14 in the Old Testament as clearly stated, and here in this parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the New, are those committed to she’ol, or hades, said to perform the acts of the living. And by this time there was grave confusion over the distinctions between Hades and Gehenna. Such was the contemporary setting for the parable.CFF1 243.1

Christ was not, it should be added, necessarily supporting the pagan concept of death as life, that had now corrupted the Jewish faith. He was simply using a current concept to instill a totally different spiritual lesson.CFF1 243.2

2. PARALLELING ALLEGORIES IN OT IMAGERY

It should also be noted that the nearest Old Testament parallel to the Dives-Lazarus parable is the parabolic imagery of Isaiah 14:4-11, which represents dead kings, though actually in their graves, as rising up and sitting on thrones in she’ol. They were there portrayed as conversing and rejoicing over the downfall of Nebuchadnezzar, the great Babylonian conqueror who had put them to death, and was then on his way to take his throne among them in the nether regions. (See pp. 170, 171.)CFF1 243.3

Then there was Jotham’s parabolic story of the trees, the vine, and the bramble engaging in animated discussion (Judges 9:8-16; 2 Kings 14:9)—but never, of course, taking place in reality. It was purely and clearly figurative—a fictional narrative. As someone has phrased it, it presented a “substantial truth” in the framework of “circumstantial fiction.” So there is no determinative help from the Old Testament. Here, in the parable of Luke 16:19-31, the unconscious dead are represented as carrying on a conversation—but without necessarily involving the actual consciousness of the dead, according to Old Testament precedent.CFF1 243.4

3. NOT BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH BUT PARABOLIC FABLE

This New Testament portrayal is obviously an illustrative parable, not a biographical sketch. It is to be understood and treated as a parable—designed to portray and enforce a moral lesson. Its personages—the rich man and Lazarus—were not actual historical figures, but imaginary characters representing classes of people. And, we repeat, one cannot admit certain portions to be parabolic, and at the same time insist that other portions are literal. The narrative is a unit and stands or falls together. In a parable the various details do not have individual significance in themselves. They simply constitute an appropriate setting for the story. Consistency, reasonableness, or truthfulness are not prerequisite. But it is vastly different with historical narratives. Conflict with fact is fatal there.CFF1 243.5

The fundamental principle illustrated in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is unquestionably that eternal destiny is decided in this present life; and that there is no second probation. It clearly declares that there can be no alteration or improvement of the condition of those who die outside the provisions of salvation. Moreover, if this story were historical, it would have to be in harmony with the general teaching or tenor of Scripture. But, as we have observed, the idea that good and bad alike enter upon their reward at death is not in harmony with the general tenor of Scripture. These parabolic details and divergences have nothing to do with any basic doctrinal teaching on the intermediate state; nor do they bear on the character and duration of the future punishment of the wicked. Such do not come within its scope. These principles are determinative.CFF1 244.1

We should also recognize that a parable may illustrate some fundamental aspect of truth based upon current customs or contemporary sayings, however erroneous such may be in themselves. And such parables must always be understood in the light of the truth they are designed to teach. In reality this parable has no reference to future punishment or to the condition of man between death and the resurrection. And not a word is said as to the duration of the flame in Hades, in which the scene is placed. Yet Eternal Torment is the main point of the contender for the immortality of the soul.CFF1 244.2

Picture 2: Parbles of Lost Sheep, Coin and Son:
Christ’s Parables of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Lost Son Form the Setting for His Further Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus.
Page 244CFF1 244