7. What details of this parable show that it is not describing the souls of those who have died? Luke 16:22, 24.
Compiler’s note: Most people ignore/overlook the fact that all three deceased characters, Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man are portrayed as having bodies, with a bosom, a finger, a tongue and eyes. They are not disembodied ‘souls’ waiting to be reunited with their bodies as many Christians believe.
NOTE: ‘The scene changes, and disembodied souls become the actors, according to current theology; but let us read on and see if there is any evidence of this: “And it came to pass, that the beggar died, (this relates to his body,) and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.” (This relates to the soul.) Is there the slightest evidence for this assumption? “The rich man also died, (this refers to his body,) and was buried; (what does this refer to? His soul? It certainly must if the Lazarus that was not buried, but carried by the angels to Abraham’s bosom, refers to the soul of Lazarus, as is affirmed, then the rich man that was not carried there, but buried, must refer to his soul;) and in hell (the hades, grave or place where the dead are deposited) he (who? the rich man, or the rich man’s soul, let us see) lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus (not his soul) in his bosom; and he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, (not his soul) that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.” Read the whole, and you will see that Lazarus, in order to visit and warn the rich man’s five brethren, must have a resurrection from the dead. How could this be, if it relates to the immortal soul or spirit? The truth is, not one single syllable in the entire transaction, relates to souls or spirits disembodied, but to two men embodied: it was Abraham, five brethren, the rich man, and the poor man, as embodied men, which are interested in the affair, and not their abstract spirits.’ James White: Review & Herald, December 12, 1854.
8. In view of Psalm 37:25, should the beggar Lazarus represent the godly? What was the Pharisees’ belief about riches and poverty? Luke 16:13-14.
NOTE: ‘Our Saviour shows His estimate of the two. Lazarus, although in so deplorable a condition, had true faith, true moral worth, which God sees, and which He considers of so great value that He takes this poor, despised sufferer, and places him in the most exalted position, while the honoured and wealthy ease-loving rich man is thrust out from the presence of God, and is plunged into misery and woe unutterable. In the sight of God this wealthy man was of no value, because he had not true moral worth. His riches did not recommend him to God. By this parable Christ would teach His disciples to shun the course pursued by the Pharisees, who judged or valued men by their wealth, or by the worldly honours they received. He showed that some who possessed both riches and worldly honour were of no esteem in the sight of God; more than this, they were despised and rejected, cast out from His sight as disgusting to Him, because there was no moral worth or soundness in them. They were corrupt, sinful, and abominable before Him.’ Review & Herald, March 4, 1880,
Compiler’s note: Things worth noting about this strange parable, suggesting that Jesus deliberately wanted us to question its content:
· Not one of Jesus’ many other parables gives a name to any of the people in it. This is therefore not a typical parable. Should we then think about it differently? Did Jesus choose the name ‘Lazarus’ for a special reason?
· None of those today who treat this parable as a literal account of what happens when you die actually believe the details of this parable. They think of Heaven as up and hell as down. But the parable places them alongside each other as neighbouring regions of Hades, so close that you can hold a conversation between them.
· Those who take this parable literally cannot see the incongruous nature of the story, played up by Jesus, e.g. the idea that a person suffering the torments of hell could be relieved by a single drop of water from the tip of a finger! (Wouldn’t the water evaporate before the rich man could taste it?)
· In view of Psalm 37:25, how could the beggar represent the godly? Surely what Jesus was doing was reversing the attitudes of the Pharisees about riches and poverty. The fact that the rich man ends up in the fiery torments while the beggar ends up in Abraham’s bosom is a deliberate challenge to their teaching that the rich are the ones who enjoy God’s favour and that poverty is a sign of God’s displeasure.