Objection:
Christ’s story of the rich man and Lazarus proves the soul’s immortality.
Answer:
That story says nothing about immortal souls leaving the body at death. Instead, after he died, the rich man had “eyes” and a “tongue,” which are very real bodily parts. He asked Lazarus to “dip the tip of his finger in water.” If the narrative is to be taken literally, then the good and bad at death do not soar away as intangible spirits but go to their rewards as real beings with bodily parts. Yet how could they go there bodily, seeing that their bodies had been buried in the grave?
Again, if this is a literal account, heaven and hell are near enough for a conversation between the inhabitants of the two places, a rather undesirable situation, to say the least. Suppose the believers in natural immortality claim this is a literal picture of the geography of heaven and hell. In that case, they must surrender the text concerning the “souls under the altar” crying for vengeance against their persecutors (See Rev. 6:9–11). Both passages cannot be literal. If the righteous can see the wicked in torture, why should they need to cry to God for vengeance?
When the rich man pleaded that Lazarus be sent back to earth to warn others against hell, Abraham replied, “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” And “if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16:29, 31. Thus, the narrative nowhere speaks of disembodied spirits, not even in the matter of returning to warn men. Instead, return is in terms of rising “from the dead.”
To avoid believing that spirits have bodies and that heaven and hell are near enough for conversations, does the objector now wish to view this story simply as a parable? Then we would remind him that theologians with one accord agree that doctrines ought not to be built upon parable or allegories. Like other illustrations, a parable is generally used to make one particular point vivid. Building doctrines on every part of the story would generally result in absurdity if not utter contradiction. Indeed, trying to find proof of a belief in the illustration that is the opposite of that held by the speaker or writer would violate the primary rule governing illustrations. By using this parable to prove that men receive their rewards at death, we affirm that the objector would cause Christ to contradict Himself.
Elsewhere, Christ states the definite time when the righteous receive their reward and the wicked are cast into the consuming fire: “When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: … Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: … Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” (Matthew 25:31-41).
There is no need for one to return to give a warning regarding the fate beyond the grave because the living “have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” Therefore, we, the living, are justified in understanding the parable in harmony with what the prophets have said. Malachi, for example, states that “the day comes” (a future event) when the wicked are to suffer the torments of consuming fire (See Mal. 4:1–3.) The Old Testament writers are very emphatic in stating that the dead, righteous and wicked alike, lie silent and unconscious in the grave until the resurrection day (See Job 14:12–15, 20, 21; 17:13; 19:25–27; Ps. 115:17; Eccl. 9:3–6, 10).
Thus, declaring the story a parable or an allegory gives the objector no more support than if he declared it to be literal, unless he wishes to maintain the impossible claim that a particular point in a figurative story should be taken literally. Thus, a direct contradiction is created between the literal statements of “Moses and the prophets” and Christ (in Matthew 25).
We believe the story is a parable, which was Christ’s usual method in His teaching, even though here, as in various other instances, He does not expressly state so. We, therefore, seek to find just what lesson Christ was trying to teach and do not attempt to make the parable prove anything more than this. Evidently, Christ was wishing to rebuke the Pharisees, “who were covetous.” Luke 16:14. They, indeed many of the Jews, thought that riches were a sign of God’s favor and poverty of His displeasure. Christ drove home the one primary lesson: that the reward awaiting the covetous rich, who have naught but crumbs for the poor, was the very opposite of what the Jews believed.
That is what the parable intended to teach. It would be as consistent for us to contend that Christ also taught here that the righteous go to “Abraham’s bosom.” That heaven and hell are within speaking distance, as that He taught that the reward comes immediately at death. Christ guarded against the drawing of unwarranted conclusions from this lesson He was teaching the Jews by placing it in the setting of a story. He doubly guarded it by declaring in closing that “Moses and the prophets” should guide the living regarding their fate beyond death. Yes, He triply guarded it by describing the return of anyone from the dead in terms of a resurrection.
By employing the language of allegory He could very properly have the unconscious dead carry on a conversation without necessitating the conclusion that the dead are conscious. Elsewhere in the Bible, we find the vivid parable of the trees going “forth on a time to anoint a king over them,” and of the conversation between them (See Judges 9:7–15; also 2 Kings 14:9). Why not attempt to prove by this parable that trees talk and that they have kings? No, you say, that would be trying to make it prove more than was intended by the speaker. We agree. The same rule applies to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
