W. E. MANLEY B5Z4I8 .HZ79 THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS FEB 6 19G' '-^ \ Price :— One copy of any one Number, 20 Cents ; Four copies, 60 Cents ; Ten copies, $1.00; One Hundred copies, $8.00. t: _^^-"-*^'^ ( OCT V> 1920 BIBLICAL expositor: A QUARTERLY. FublistLed Once in Ttiree Is/Ionttis at CHICAGO, ILL. Each number containiug an Exposition of some important pas- sage of Scripture, or subject of Theology, and containing from 32 to 48 pages. BY REV. W. E. xMANLEY, AUTHOR OF THE "BIBLICAL REVIJ]W," OR NEW AND IMPROV ED COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE. VOIii. I. Number I. Rich Man and Lazarus. OCT .i ^i 1920 THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. LUKE XVI. 19. There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptu- ously 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 bos- om: the rich man also died, and was buried ; 23. And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and see- eth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24. And he cried and said, Fa- ther 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 tor- mented in this flame. 25. But Abraham said, Son, re- member that thou in thy lifetime receivdst thy good things, and Lazarus evil things: but now lie is comforted, and thou art tor- mented. 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 would- est 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 toiment. 29. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the proph- ets ; let them hear them. 30. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will re- pent. 31. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be per- suaded, though one rose from the dead. We propose to explain the foregoing passage in the light of the context, having in view all the cir- cumstances under which it was originally spoken. We do this, not only hecanse we would understand the passage and make a right application of it ; but (/ b BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. we would, as far as possible, redeem the Scriptures from the reproach of giving its sanction to such a doctrine as this passage has been made to support. We are accustomed to speak of this passage as " the jparahle of the ricli man and Lazarus." Tliis is the common way of referring to it ; and yet, some interpreters maintain that the passage is not a para- ble, but a historical narrative. This, then, seems to be the proper subject to discuss Urst. It may seem uncharitable, but we have sometimes had our doubts, as to the integrity and sincerity of those who say this is not a parable ; for at times they will refer to the passage inadvertantly, as every body else does, as \\\q ])arcLble of the rich man and Lazarus, at the same time that they declare it to be history and not a parable. It is a parable. There can be no doubt of it. There can be none with any fair-minded and unpreju- diced person. We are quite sure it would never have been regarded in any other light, if it had not been to support a favorite creed. The passage is in a discourse of parables. It is associated whli other passages that are universally regarded as parables. It has the same form and construction. It evidently aims at the same thing. The only ditference is, that the others are taken from the customs and habits of the people, and this from their superstitions; — the others from tilings temporal and on earth, and this from the realms of the spirits. The doctrines and principles inculcated are the same in all of them. The parable of the Lost Sheep, the Lost Piece of Silver, the Unjust Steward, the Prodigal Son, and the Rich Man and Lazarus, are all together, and were spoken on one occasion. If we call one of them a parable, why not the rest? If all are parables, but the last, what reason can be given for this exception ? " The passage is not called a parable." That is so. THE EICH MAN AND LAZAEUS. 7 Neither are the others called parahles but the first; jet all admit tliej are parables. It was not common ibr the Savior to tell tlie people, when he was using parables and when not. The circumstances existin<^, at the time, made this evident, with no reasonable chance for mistake. Besides, it will not do to call the passage real history ; for if we ,do, we will find onrselves involved in absurdities, contradictions and impossibilities. Let us see: — That there was a rich man who fared sumptuously every day, and was clothed in purple and fine linen, may be admitted. There have been many such. That such a man died and was buried, may also be admitted. Such men die as well as others. That there was a beggar, named Lazarus, who was laid at a rich man's gate, and desired to be fed with the crumbs that fell from his table, we need not dispute. Such things have occurred many times in the history of our race. So far there is nothing unnatural or imprubable. But when we follow these persons into the other world, and undertake to explain what is said of them, in this passage, as real history, we meet with insuper- able diliiculties. Does any one believe that fire and water exist in the spirit world, and answer there the same purposes as here ? Does any one believe that the plnce of happiness is separated from the place of misery by a great gulf? Besides, it would seem that these men went to their respective places of destina- tion in bodily form. Their identity is kept in view throughout the passage. There is allusion to the tongue of the rich man, the finger of the beggar, and the losom of Abraham. The plain inference is, that the rich man went to his place of torment, in the same condition as that in which he died ; and that the beg gar was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom, in the same condition as when he was taken from the rich man's gate. No one believes that these things 8 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. are to be understood literally. Those who insist on a literal or historical construction of the passage, as a whole, are obliged to confess that much of it is ligura- tive. We are more consistent. We regard the whole passage as alike, and altogether a parable, like the other parables with which it is associated. Before leaving this topic, let us see how a historical interpretation will suit the orthodox theology, at the present day. Those who insist on this view of the passage, should be made to see distinctly, what conse- quences it involves. I suspect, if this passage is his- torically true, that the religionists, who invoke its aid, to build up their faith and to overthrow ours, will find they must modify their system, very materially, to bring it into harmony with the Savior's teaching. To bring the matter directly before them, I would ask, — Do they believe in such a future state as is here described ? They say this passage is no fiction, but a statement of facts. But do they believe the facts here stated? Surely they believe in facts. They can not reject facts. They say the passage is no parable. Let them then abide by this declaration. Will they do so ? Can they do so ? If the passage is real history ; if it states facts, then it follows, that heaven and hell are near together, and men can talk with each other, and be acquainted with each other's condition in the two places. Do people, at the present day, believe this? There was a time when this was believed, and not many years ago ; and the sensibilities of the people do not appear to have been greatly disturbed by this view of the snb- iect. The renowned Doctor Edwards thought the arrangement an excellent one for increasing the hap- piness of the saints. It would make them appreciate their privileges, and enjoy them with a better relish, when they saw their friends and relations in torments, TH« RICn MAN A]SrD LAZARUS. 9 and heard their ceaseless and unavailing cries for mercy. This is no fabrication. We ai-e stating what every body knows. Others, scarcely less renowned than Doctor Edwards, thouglit and taught in the same -^ay — at least they taught so. But now this view is generally discarded. That heaven and hell are so near together, is regarded as a serious impediment in the way of the popuhxr belief; and sundry expedients are resorted to, to get rid of the difhculty. It suits the popular taste better, in these days of rehnement and philanthropy, to regard tlie two places as tarther separated. We can hardly make up our minds, to look with joy, or even with indifference, on the suf- ferings of our nearest and dearest friends, when we get into the other world ; or believe that the}- will Took upon us with these feelings. And yet we must believe this, if the passage before us is a statement of facts. The passage does represent that the place of happiness, and the pUice of misery, are near to- gether ; that men in the two places can talk together, and are acquainted with each other's condition. It does farther represent, that Abraliam looked upon the torments of the rich man, whom he calls his son, and for whom, being his son, one would think he ought to feel some synipathy, as apparently unmoved. He does not indeed shout, " Glory to God," over the miseries of the danmed. That Avas a refinement of an atter age. But he shows a degree of indifference and stoicism, which we should hardly expect, in such a saint as he is represented to be. We are none of us now willing to be like him. But how are we to help ourselves, if the passage before us is a piece of real history ? There is no way ; and those who maintain that this passage is not a parable, but a historical nar- rative, must be prepared to meet the facts. If they recoil at such a heaven (and who would not?) they must still accept it, or take the only alternative — a place with the rich man. 10 BIELICAL EXPOSITOE. The difficulty we have noticed, is not the only one. If the passage is a historical statement, the popular theoloo-y is wronsf in regard iiifj heaven and hell as up and doion, or above and heloiv. According to this passage, heaven is no higher than hell, and hell is no lower than heaven. Both are on a common level. The rich man did not look i/jj, when he addressed Abraham ; and the latter did not look doivn, when he replied. The gnlf was between them, and they looked and spoke across it. Poets have said and sung, — "Down in the deep whei-e darkness dwells," They should say, — " Over the gulf where darkness dwells." The last has the same measure, and it suits the /acts of the case better than the other, if the passage we are explaining is a statement of /acts. But not only the poets, but the preachers are wrong ; for whenever they have occasion to speak of heaven and hell, in the other world, they uniformly represent heaven as being above, and hell below. The popular phraseolo- gy has so long prevailed, and is so universal, that it will not be easily changed. "We would advise the clergy to commence at once; for evidently they should make their forms of expression agree with facts. As the matter now stands, they misrepresent the facts, every time they refer to the subject. This is not all. The clergy misrepresent facts whenever they speak of men leaving this world for their future abode. Of the good, they say, " They have gone ti^ to heaven," of the bad, " They have gone dow)i to hell." Evidently this is wrong ; for if the good go up, and the bad go down, when they leave the world, how do they come to be in the same locality, immediately afterwards ? We know of no principle of natural or moral philosophy, by which THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 11 meri, leavino; a given point, and going in exactly opposite directions, can be brought near enough to- gether to hold conversation, either in a short or a long time afterwards. If our friends know of any such principle, let them explain it ; if they do not, then let them confess that they are constantly misrep- resenting facts, when they refer to this subject. The ancients^ believed that when men left the world — the good and the bad — they went in tl>e same general direction — they all went down. Evidently the an- cients were right, and the moderns are wrong. The latter liave a iri'eat work before them, to change the long estabhshed usage ; and the sooner they begin the better. If they do iiot like the idea of going doiun, then let them take the other direction, but let them represent that all go the same way. This the passage befure us rerpuresj if it be a statement of facts. We are disposed to notice, in this place, one thing that is favorable to the popular belief. The passage is not against the orthodox interpretation in all re- spects. It is a favorable circumstance tliat the Savior does not locate the great gulf. He does not tell in what part of the underworld it is placed. He docs not tell us, whether it is in the center, or on one side. He does not tell us, on which side of the gulf ]o the largest territory — whether the Elysian or the Tarta- rian region is most extensive. But how does this favor the common belief, you will ask? It lavors it in two ways. One is, that on the side of the blessed, there may be space enough to allow one to retire to the outskirts, and escape, for a time, from the dolorous groans and wild bowlings of the damned, among whom, perhaps, are fathers or mothers, husbands "or wives, parents or children, or others dear as our own life. Men talk as if this would be some relief to theni ; and possibly they may be favored in this way. It is 12 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. often said, when thej feel themselves embarrassed with the difficulties of their faith, that they will not know that tlieir friends are in hell. Bat tliey will know that they are not in heaven ; and where else can they be but in hell ? If they think they can be ha])py in heaven, while their friends are miserable in hell, provided they are a little way off, and out of sight and hearing of the awful scene, it is well for them to have the opportunity. We do not sympa- thize with such. We think we should be drawn as near to our friends as possible. We should cling to the very borders of the gulf, and with unuttemble yearning, we should gaze "upon the dear ones in mis- ery. If we could do otherwise than this, we should feel that we were unworthy a place in Paradise. The other circumstance favorable to orthodoxy is, that we are now permitted to enlarge our charities, to almost any extent, requii-ed by the progress of the age, and believe in the salvation of as laig-e a number as we ])lease, only excepting a very few, to avoid the reproach of being Universalists. Perhaps you do not see the point. As the matter now stands, we may suppose that almost the whole of the underworld i^ on the side of the saved, and very little of it on the side of the lost. The gulf, you know, used to be entirely on one side, and it was the side that suited the spirit of the age. But in modern times, it has been ascer- tained, that this was a mistake. The gulf is really on the other side, so that now the redeemed of the Lord have a wide territory for their occupancy. It is large enough for almost any number; — it is large enough for almost all men. The space, oji the other side,'^is small, and by some unexplained law of nature, it is growing smaller all the time ; and some of our wisest spiji'itual geologists are beginning to suspect that it will ultimately disappear, and the gulf with it, and leave the whole country in possession of the saints, THE RICH MAN AND LAZAEUS. 13 thongli to express such an opinion, is not deemed quite safe and prudent just now. Perhaps it will be said_, that this is not treating the subject with as nuich seriousness as is required. We have only to say, — If we do not treat the subject seriously, it is all involuntary. The opinions of men are so very absurd sometimes, that we can hardly help smiling at their ridiculousness. Here let me ask, What will the popular expounder now. do ? Will he insist that the Savior is stating facts, and still refuse to receive his tacts and act upon them? Will he still claim that this passage proves future rewards and punishments, and then deny that rewards and punishments are administered in any such form as here described % There is great incon- sistency in this. If the passage proves the doctrine of future punishment, it also clearly points out the manner of its infliction. If there is a place of happi- ness hereafter, and a place of misery, they are just such places as are here described, having the same proximity and relative position ; and we must so un- derstand' the subject, and make our language to cor- respond, or we must give up this passage as proving the doctrine. No; tliere is one other alternative; and that is — to be very inconsistent — to urge a pas- sage to prove a doctrine, and then to deny the doc- trine it proves. We have not yet stated the most serioug objection to the idea that this passage is a narrative and not a parable. We have seen that, with this view, it does not teach the modern orthodox doctrine. It may, and may not be a worse view of the case, to say that, with this view, it does teach the ancient heathen doc- trine. If the Savior is giving a piece of real history, he could not represent the modern views in a more defective form; he could not have represented the heathen doctrine any better. We are sorry to take 14 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. the divine Teacher out of company so respectable, and put him into company so disrepntable. If the passage that speaks of the rich man and Lazarus, is to be understood literally, the doctrine inculcated is the ancient pagan doctrine. There was a time, to be sure, when even the Pa- gans did not believe it ; but there was a period still later, wdien they did beJieve in future rewards and punishments as here set forth ; and they believed this in the time of Christ. The Jews believed it also, having learned it from the Heathens, while in captiv- ity, and under foreign bondage. In the first place, the heathen doctrine was, that all men went from this world in the same direction. This harmonizes with the passage before us. They believed that the place of happiness and of misery, was an underworld to which all men went immediate- ly after death. This, too, agrees with the passage. They believed that the place of happiness and of mis- ery were near together. They did not then see any objection to this view ; for that was not an age of benevolence like tlie present. It was not at all de- rogatory to the character of Abraham, in the age of Christ, that he looked with composure on the torment of the rich man. The theology that men believe in, always takes its character from the age they live in. That theology was ada]:)tod to a rude and barbarous age. It is not adapted to the nineteenth century ; and all sorts of expedients are resorted to, with a view to soften down its rugged features, and adapt it to the generous and philanthropic spirit of the pres- ent age. Those who can not deny it altogether, are changing it to a more comely form, and doing as much as possible, in the same direction, without deny- ing it. If the}'' must confess that there is such a place, as an endless hell, they are for keeping it as much as possible out of sight. At all events, they do THE KICH MAN AND LAZAEUS. 15 not mean it shall disturb the happiness of the immor- tal world, by it frightful exhibitions of misery. Nor is this all. The Heathens, who used the samo lano-uao-e as Christ, called the place of future rewards ancf puuishments by the same name. The name ot the underworld, among those who used the Greek language, was hades, the very word, nsed m this pas- sao-e, to denote the same thing. There is a Httle ambiguity in the passage, that may as well be explained here as anywhere. It seems to make hades, here rendered hell, to be the abode alone of the rich man, when, in fact, that is not the inten- tion of Christ. The word hell was the name ot the underworld, including the place of happiness, as well as the place of punishment. The rich man was m hades or hell ; that is, he was in his part of it. Biit- Abraham and the beggar were also in hades ; that is, in their part of it. Hence it is, that the abode of the beggar and Abraham is not mentioned. There was no^'necessity of naming it, as hades included the whole, T • There is no ancient usage to justify the application of hades to a place of punishment, in the other world. Bible usages certainly gives no sanction to such an opinion, and heathen usage does not. But heathen usage does justify an application of the word to the icndenoorld, including a place of happiness, as well as misery ; and that lis the usage in the passage we are now'explaining. This, with other circumstances, compels us to say,"tliat the passage teaches the pagan doctrine, allowing that it is to be interpreted histori- cally. . , , We come then to this alternative, either to make the Savior to have taught a pagan doctrine, and one of the most offensive doctrines that paganism ever engendered, — or, to make him to have forme4^1 a par- abhi from pagan mythology, with a view to illustrate 16 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. some important subject, to be ascertained from the connection in which the passage is found. We prefer the iatter; and we should think all people, who have any respect for the Savior, would do the same. On the subject of the historical character of the passage, we may add one more remark, and then we will proceed to other matters, connected with the pas- sage. Where did Christ obtain the facts he here communicates, if they are tacts? No one certainly ever came back from the other world to inform him of the incidents that transpired there. We have no evidence that Jesus had been in the other world ; and we can not say, therefore, that he is reporting what he saw himself The passage itself is opposed 'to any sucli idea, as that Christ, or any other person, had been authorized to report the transactions of the spirit world. The passage says, that no one was permitted to go from the dead to admonish the living. Then Christ, of course, had not been permitted to do this. The passage says, that men in this world, will not be- lieve, though one should rise from the dead to warn them. Shall we say that Jesus himself was doincr this useless work, — what he admits to be so? "^ How plain it is, that the passage itself refutes the idea of its historical construction ? It tells us that those, who had Moses and the prophets, had enough, without any one to go unto them from the dead. Would this have been said, if Jesus was, at that very moment, reporting the doings of the other world ? And if those who had Moses and the prophets, did not need a reporter from the unseen abode of spirits, to make them repent, of course those who have Moses and the prophets, and Jesus besides, do not need any messenger of this kind. The conclusion is, that Jesus was not such a messenger, either to the Jews or to us ; and therefore, the passage before us, is no such message as men have regarded it. THE RICH MAIS" AND LAZARUS. 17 We said tliere was no ancient usage to justify the application of hades to a place of future pnnisljment. We think something more should be said on this sub- ject. It is the lault of our interpreters generally, that they have said so little on this point, when dis- cussing the rich man and Lazarus. We will supply this detV'Ct, in as few words as possible. The Old Testament does not contain this word, but it contains a corresponding word. Slicol of the Old Testament, and hades of the New Testament, are cor- respon.liii'^ terms. One is a Htbrew word, and the other is Greek. The Old Testament was translated into the Greek language, from two to three hundred years before the time of Christ. In this translation, hades is used to represent sheol, making it evident that both were understood, at that time, as meaning the same thing. ^, i m - The meaning of sheol, all through the Old lesta- ment, is that of grave. In about half the instances _it is translated grave. It should be so translated in many more. x\nd if it be necessary to make the translation uniform, grave is the term that ought to be employed in all cases. Whatever plausible rea- sons may 'be given for understanding a few passages differently, there is absolutely nothing to favor the idea WvAi sheol denotes a place of spirits for the good or bad in the other world ; and the same may be said of its corresponding Greek word. It was at a later day that hades began to be applied by the Jews to a woiid of sinrits, with one place for the good and another for the bad. The Heathens adopted this belief first, and the Jews afterwards ; and it was still later that it came into the Christian church. The term hades occurs ten or a dozen times in the New Testament, and has there the same meaning as the Old Testament translators had given to it, twoor three centuries before, with one exception only, which is, iM the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. 18 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. Evidence more overwhelming than this, could nol exist, to prove that this parable is taken from jmgan mythology. Li no other instance, is there the least evidence, that hades is a place of spirits, or under world, much less, that there is a great gulf, to separ- ate between the good and the bad. But, in this pas- sage, the reference to such a state is very covious ; and the fact shows clearly that the pagan theory of the future was had in view, — not to sanction it, but to illustrate another subject. Some may think that this passage proves the doc- trine of future punishment as much, regarded as a parable, as it would with the historical view. If this were so, the doctrine proved, would be the pagan doctrine, and not the one insisted on by the pojuTlar interpreter. But, in fact, there is no doctrine of this character, pagan or orthodox, proved by the passage. It is the most unfortunate passage that 'could be cpiot- ed for such a purpose, as a m'oment's thought will convince any one. The facts implied, in a parable, can never be the same as the facts represented by it. If I can make this plain, it will appear certain,- that this passage does not and can not teach future rewards aiid pun- ishments. A parable is the choice of 07ie thing to represent another, never, to represent the same. I can not make use of future rewards and punishments, as a parable, to teach future rewards and punishments. That would be absurd. The moment that we admit that this is a parable, taken from the retributions of the other world, that moment we nmst give up the idea that it teaches or represents the retributions of the other world, and must seek for something else as the thing represented. I can not use heaven to represent heaven, nor hell torepreseiit hell. I can use either to represent some- thing similar to itself, but not the same thing, h THE EICH MAK AND LAZARUS. 19 parable, and the thing represented by it, arc always similar. There must'be points of resemblance,^ but they can never be the same. The torments of the rich man, in the other world, can not represent future punislnnent; fur it is itself future punishment. And, for the same reason, the happiness of the beggar can not represent future rewards. The figure is one thing; — that which is represented by it, is another thing — similar to be sure, but nut the same. This point being so obvious, we will call attention to anotlfer. It is tins: — Did not the Savior give his sanction to the common doctrine by making use of it as a figure or parable ? By his reference to a place of rewards and punishments, did he not give his hearers reason to believe that there was such a place ? Or, to express the same thing in a different form. Would he assume that a man died and went to hell, and another died and went to heaven; and that a conversation took place betAveen the two places, hav- ing reference to their condition, if no such thing ever occurred'^ One might say that this is a species of falsehood. The argument is more plausible than sound. A parable niay be drawn from real life, or it may be drawn from fiction, The Savior took his parables from various sources. He derived some of them from the social and domestic customs of the people, as in th^ case of the lost sheep, the lost piece of silver, the prodigal son, or unjust steward. Some, from the institutions of the country, as that of the unjust judge, the nobleman; and some from the siqyei'sti- tions of the people, as that of Satan casting out Satan; the evil spirit that went out of a man, and wandered through dry places, etc. ; the condition of the rich man and the beggar after death. The facts implied in a parable are not important, provided we understand them sufficiently to see the 20 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. point and bearing of the parable. It does not follow that the things implied did actually take place. They are quite as likely not to have taken place. If we make the Savior to sanction every thing implied in liis parables, I fear we shall not have so good an opin- ion of him as we ought. Did he sanction the conduct of the unjust judge, or the unjust steward, or impris- onment for debt till the last farthing should be paid ? Or, did he always mean to sanction as true, what he assumes to be so ; namely, that some are so righteous as to need no repentance ; that a beam can be con- tained in a man's eye ; that a man can swallow a camel ; that the sons of the Pharisees did really cast out devils ? Did he teach as true, that the demons do really take possession of men ; that one woman had seven such; that the evil spirit, in one case, went out of a man, and went through dry places, seeking rest and linding none ; and at last returning with other spirits more wicked than he? Did he mean, we ask, to sanction these ideas, and to put them forth as his own sentiments ? These were the sentiments generally held at that time. They belong on the same list with those im- plied in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Did the Savior believe the same way ? Then why did the people persecute him ? Why were the Scribes and Pharisees so incensed at him, if he taught the same doctrines whicii they taught? And \V'hy did he admonish his disciples to beware of the doc- trines of the Scribes and Pharisees? And why did he accuse the Pharisees of teaching, for doctrines, the commandments of men ; and that they made void the law of God by their traditions ? Christ took his parables from various sources, even from the superstitions of the people, and from their false doctrines ; but he did not teach their doctrines. You can Und places where their doctrines are referred THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 21 to, for argument or illustration ; but you can find no place where he teaches the same sentiments, "What this passage means, has not yet been dis- cussed. That it is not history but a parable; and what it does not teach, has been sufiiciently explained. We have been occupied with the negative, all that is required, "VVe must now introduce the positive. We have removed the rubbish of popular exposition. We must now build up the beautiful temple of truth. It was not well to erect the edifice, till we had laid the f nmdation on which it could stand with safety. What does this passage mean ? What is the sub- ject it was intended to illustrate, or the doctrine it was designed to teach ? The best way to answer such questions as these, and the only proper and safe way, is to look carefully at the connection, and the circumstances attending its utterance. It is an old and true maxim, that a person is known by the company he keeps. This is no less true of a passage of Scripture. It is best understood by the connection in which it is found. We some- times speak of tmlocking the meaning of a passage. This is not perhaps a bad figure. Now if the Savior meant we should unlock the meaning of this passage, he no doubt has left the key near the passage itself. Let us look and see if we can find it. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is con- tained in the latter part of the sixteenth chapter of Luke ; but the subject commences with the fifteenth chapter. The circumstances that gave rise to this discourse of the Savior, are distinctly and clearly stated, and they are worthy of special attention. The writer says, — "Then drew near unto him all the pubUcans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and Scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them." 22 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOK. The publicans and sinners were but one class of persons. The publicans were Roman tax gatherers. They were the special objects of Jewish hate. And to charge the Savior with associating with them, was the greatest reproach his enemies could cast upon bin:. "Sinners" is not here used in a moral sense, nor in its modern sense. It is used in the ancient Jewish sense. It denotes the Gentiles — all that were not Jews. They were all looked npon by the Jews as outcasts fi'om God, and the worthy objects of his vengeance. When the Pharisees murmured, say- ing, This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them, they meant, that he associated with the Gentiles, even the most abandoned, the publicans. This was equivalent to saying, that he could not be the prom- ised Messiah. As the publicans and sinners were one class, so the Pharisees and Scribes were one class. The Pharisees were the principal religious sect among the Jews. The Scribes were the religious teachers among the Pharisees, and were the most prominent among the enemies of Jesus. When, therefore, the writer says that the publicans and sinners were gathered together to hear the Savior, he means that the Gentiles, even the publicans did this. And when he says the JPliari- sees and Scribes murmured, he means, that the Phari- sees did this, more particularly their religious teach- ers, the Scribes. Here then was an exhibition of self-righteousness that needed a rebuke. The Savior embraces the opportunity to administer the rebuke, and to give these people a few moral lessons that might be useful to them. He makes use of his usnal method for doing this; he places before them several parables, fitted to rebuke and instruct them at the same time. Each parable has two prominent characters; and these two characters represent the two clas^ses of per- sons that were present and heard him. The first par- t THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 23 able is that of the lost sheep. The sheep that was lost denotes the publicans and sinners. The sheep that were not lost, denote the Pharisees and Scribes. Not that the first class were really not as good as the second, or that the second class were really better than the first. For there can be but little doubt, that the publicans and sinners were really as good as the Pharisees and Scribes. But the Savior, to render his rebukes more pointed and effective, reasons w^tli the self-righteous Pharisees on their own premises. For the time being, lie assumes that the sinners were as bad as the Pharisees regarded them, and that they themselves were as good as they claimed to be. This being admitted, the conduct of Christ was not to be condemned ; nor was the murmuring of the ^ Pharisees to be excused. The owner of the lost sheep went in pursuit of the stray animal till he found him, and then brought him back to the fold. Spirit- ually the Savior was doing the same thing. Did any one murmur because the man had sought his sheep ? No ; but every one rejoiced. How improper, then, for the Pharisees to murmur at Christ, when he had done the same thing in principle, and a much better thing in tact. The next parable is the lost piece of silver. Of course the application of this is .the same as the other. The lost piece represents the sinners, the pieces not .ost represent the Pharisees. Here the Savior re- iTiaiks that the angels rejoice over one sinner that repenteth. How unlike the Pharisees, who are mur- muring at the Savior for doing the only thing that would lead sinners to repentance ; that is, associate with them and treat them with kindness. Here the conduct of the angels is made to rebuke these self- righteous pretenders. The prodigal son, in the next parable, evidently represents the sinners ; and the elder brother, the Pharisees. It is interestino- to notice the lauffuao-e 24 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOK. and conduct of the elder brother. He was angry and Avonld not go in. The Pliarisees were angry, too. lie had been very faithful and obedient. He was, at that moment, disregarding the father's wishes. He had never disobeyed at any time. He was then dis- obeying. He had never been properly rewarded foi his extreme fidelity. How exact a representation ot the Pharisees? How exact a representation of all self-righteous religionists? They never disobeyed at any time. They are never treated with sufficient dis- tinction. The great Father is always treating the sinners better than them. - Look at the next parable. It is that of the unjust steward. The steward is the Pharisees. His custom- ers are the sinners. This parable brings to view more particulars than either of the others. There are more points of resemblance between the steward and the Pharisees, than between them and either of the other characters. And here, too, the Savior makes a more direct application than in the other parables. The Pharisees had been God's steward. They had been unfaithful, and were about to be turned out of the stewardship. So far the application is perfect. But the steward, in the parable, when he saw his con- dition, and danger of being dismissed, went about providing for the future. He could not dig, to beg he was ashamed. He evidently regarded himself as of some consequence. He would not have been a proper representative of the Scribes and Pharisees, if lie had not. But though he could not dig, nor beg, there were other ways of accomplishing his object. He could remit a portion of the indebtedness of his lord's customers, and so place them under obligations to himself, which he expected, them to cancel, when his time of need should come. He was commended for his wisdom. The Pharisees would soon be turned out of their THE EICH MAN AND LAZAKUS. 25 stewardship, but they were making no preparation for their coming necessities. Evidently they were not as wise as the steward. The children of thisworld— - men in business — are wiser tlian the children of li2;ht — men in their moral relations. Plainly the children of light are here, the Pharisees. They were not as wise in their generation, or during their dis- pensation, as the steward. What they should do, now that Judaism was about coming to an end, was to embrace the Gospel that was soon to be established. Then, as the steward was received into the houses of his lord's customers, so they would be received into the everlasting habitations of the Gospel. In the parable, the customers of the steward are the sinners, or Gentiles. They had to come to the stew- ard for oil and wine and wheat and other necessaries. In like manner, the Gentiles had obtained needful things to answer their spiritual wants from the Jews, The^Jews had a revelation and the Gentiles had not. The former were the privileged class ; the latter were dependent. But the time was coming when it should not be so. It was not long before the Jews would be cast out, and the Gentiles would take their place. The first would be last, and the last first. If the Pharisees appreciated the facts as they were, they would make friends of these sinners, rather than cast them away and despise them. The time might come when they would need favors at their hands. It is seen all along that 'the parables are of the same general description. The two characters, we saw at the beginning, we see all the way through ; and the relations they sustain to each other, are kept distinctly in view. There is one other parable in this discourse, and that is the rich man and Lazarus. Is it not as plain as the light of day, that the rich man represents the 26 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. Pharisees or Jews, and Lazarus the shiners or Gen- tiles? Of course this is phiin. Then this parable must be interpreted precisely like the others. What one means, they all mean. Some of them may have more particulars than the otliers, and they may differ in some minor points ; but tlie general representation is the same. And here let me repeat, that it makes no diffi'rence where the parable is obtained, whether from tlie ordinary transactions of life, or from the opinions of men about the future. It is the meaning that we must seek for, and not the facts or fancies that may have supphed the illustration. For exam- ple, every one can see that the lost sheep, and tlie lost piece of silver, denote the same thing. It will not do to say that they must be interpreted different- ly, because in the one case, the slieep fold furnishes the illustration, and in the other, the woman's purse of money. It 'would be quite as reasonable to say, that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus must be very differently interpreted, from that of the steward, because the one is taken from the spirit land, and the other from the transactions of this world. We do not doubt that these passages would all be rightly interpreted, if the last had been omitted. Even now, few, if any, ever refer the other parables to the future world. They are rightly understood, as showing the character and condition of the two classes, and the change that was soon to come over them, having reference to the present life and not the future. Why change the application, when the para- ble of the rich man and Lazarus is added to the rest ? This is derived from a different source, to be sure, but tlie meaning is not changed. These passages have all one reference. They have all one purpose. They have all one interpretation. The object of the Savior was to show to his Phari- saic hearers, that, having been unfaithful in the trust THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 27 that had been committed to them, they were soon to be deprived of their privileges, and reduced to a con- dition of want and suflteriiig; while the Gentiles, whom they despised and hated, would embrace the Gospel aiKl be elevated to a condition of honor and liappiness, they had never before enjoyed. This is plainly taught in the jiarable of the steward. It is still more plainly and fully taught, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Let the two be noticed together, for a moment, and it will be seen that the meaning of the one is the meaning of the other. 1. The hon(»rable position of the steward, having charge of his lord's property, in the one parable, and the riches and purple and line linen and sumptuous fare of the rich man, in the other, have the same meaning. The meaning is, that the Jews had, for a long time, been the peculiar people of God, Tliey hacf enjoyed privileges not given to the rest of the world. They had been rich^'and increased in goods. They had been God's steward. The truths of divine revelation, which had been committed to them, they had dispensed to others, to some extent. They had put the rest of the world under great obligations to them, or more properly, perhaps, to the Lord whom they had served. 2. The steward was accused of being unfaithful. The accusation was no doubt true. All the circum- stances show it to be true. The rich man had not done all that was required of him. Nonspecific sins are charged against him, but it is plainly implied that his conduct was not unexceptionable. The same thing is denoted in both parables. 8. The steward was to be cast out of the steward- ship. And if he had not provided against it, the inference is, that he would have been reduced to great want and sufifering. The death of the rich man, and the sufferings that followed, have the same meaning. In both parables, the Jews are taught that they were 28 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. not worthy of their position ; that they would soon be cast out of it, and brought down as low, comparative- ly, as their former condition had been elevated and happy. That this came upon them, a few years after these parables were spoken, is known to every body. They had not been faithful in that which was least, they were not permitted to have charge of more. They had not been faithful in that which was another man's ; and they were not entrusted with that which should be their own. This kind of language occurs in the immediate connection, and it means that the Jews had not been faithful in the law, and they would not be permitted to have the Gospel. The one is compared to the unrighteous mammon, and the other is called the true riches. 4. The steward's customers were the Gentiles. They came and bought what they needed of the Jews. They were in want. They appear to have had no money to pay ; for they obtained their sup- plies on credit. The same idea is conveyed in the next parable, by the poverty of Lazarus. He desired the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table. In the one parable, there is a buying on credit, and in the other, a begging of what was needed. The two things are not very unlike. They here express the same idea. They teach that, during the Jewish dis- pensation, (the rich man's life time) the Gentiles were poor and in want. Their condition was like that of the beggar. All they had of truth they obtained of the Jews. 5. The transfer of the beggar from the rich man's gate, to Abraham's bosom, denotes the elevation of the Gentiles to a condition of privilege and of happi- ness, which they had never before enjoyed. This was a real occurrence. For after the Jews had fallen, the Gentiles embraced the Gospel, and have been as much distinguished above the Jews, as the Jews had been above them. The parable of the steward has THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 29 the same idea, for it implies that the time would come, when the steward would be as dependent on his customers, as they had before been on hnn. The resemblance of the two parables makes it obvi- ous that both mean the same thing. No_ one would think of applying the first to the condition of men after death. It applies to the Jews as God s peculiar people, and their beini,^ deprived of that position on account of their nnfaithfulness, and the miseries they would bring upon themselves m consecpience. All parts of the' parables are in harmony with this con- struction. The next parable so exactly hke this, can have no other application. This, therefore, is the ap- plication we make of it. The context will justity no other. As we come still nearer the passage, we are ex- plaining, the evidence accumulates. There a lew expressions that immediately precede the passage, which we have not vet quoted, that will not permit any other application than the one we have chosen. The Savior says, " The law and the prophets were until John ; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it Ihe old dispensation was eontinued untd John the iiaptist. After that the Gospel was preached. The subject then, is that of the two dispensations. The exact point of time, that separates between the old and the new economy, was not the appearance of John the Baptist; but, more properly, the destruction ot Jeru- salem, and the dissolution of the Jewish state. But the reference to John the Baptist was very proper, as he occupied a position between the two dispensations. He announced the close of the old, and the beginning of the new. The Jews believed that such a messen- ger would come before the time of the Messiah. They should have received him, and believed his message, and been prepared for the coming event. 30 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. Had they acted as wisely as the steward, they would have done this ; but they had not done so, and must take the consequences. The next passage to this, appears at first to be an entire change of the subject; but a little thought will convince any one that it is the same subject, iJlnstrat- ed by a comparison. The passage is tliis : — " Whoso putteth away his wife and manMetii anotlier, commit- teth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery." The meaning is, that, wdiile the law was in force, the Jews should not put it away. It was as wrong to do so as for a man to put away his wife and marry another. But now that the law was virtually put away, and would soon be utterly abolished, it was as wrong for them to adhere to it, as it would be for a man to mar- ry her that had been put away from her husband. In view of this passage, and similar ones that pre- cede it, what ouglit we to think of the application ol the rich man and Lazarus, when we see that this par- able is the very next thing that is spoken ? It follows immediately after the two passages last quoted ; and the two passa,f^es last quoted, do, beyond a douht, refer to the tivo disjjeyisations. It is equally beyond a doubt, that this passage has the same reference. The rich man's life time, has reference to the Jew- ish dispensation. The life time of Lazarus has refer- ence to the same period. The first concerns the Jews, the last the Gentiles. The one was rich, the other poor. The one was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously. The other was desti- tute, — was fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, — was full of sores, which the dogs endeavored to heal. Soon the scene is changed. The rich man is in tor- THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 31 ment ; tlie beii'gar is reposing on the bosom of Abra- ham. Once the beggar desired the crumbs that fell from the rich nian's table; now the rich man is a begi^ar, and desires a drop of water to cool his tongue, l^ie great gulf denotes the separation that has always existed'between the Jews and Gentiles. For though the Jews have been scattered into all parts ot the world, they retain their identity, as perfect, as before their downfall. It is not absolutely impossible to cross this line; but it is very difficult, and the pas- sage rightly understood, expresses no more than this. Itis not expected that the points of resemblance, in a parable, should be perfect. An approximation to exactness is all that is expected ; so that an iinpassa- hle barrier, in the other world, may properly denote a difficult one in this. Again : it would be expected that the parable itself, as well as the context, should contain more or less indications of its application. I think we shaU find a goodlv number of these, in the passage. A rich man is chosen to represent the Jews, because the object was to place before them the privileges they had long enjoyed, as a people, and of which they were soon to be deprived. The rich man was a Jew. Of course no other would answer the Savior's purpose. Had he chosen a Gentile, there would have been no point to the argument. That Gentiles should find themselves in torment, was no surprise to the Jews. They regard- ed them all as only fit for such a place. But the Savior chooses a Jew, and shows that they even, may find themselves in misery at last. Hence he makes him call on Abraham for help, as the Jews would be very likely to do. He makes him to call Abraham ' father, aiid the latter to call the rich man his sooi. And farther, he makes the rich man's brethren to have Moses and the prophets. And if his brethren 32 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. had Moses and the prophets, of course he had. The Jews had Moses and the prophets, but the Gentiles had not. And still farther, he makes the rich man to act as a Jew only would be likely to do. We shall see in what respect he did so, after a little. Again : the rich man was not only a Jew, but he was apparently a Jewish priest, precisely such an one as the Scribes, who are said to have been present and heard these parables. His garments were purple and nne linen, such as the priests were accustomed to wear. He fared sumptuously every day. The law made abundant provision for those who" officiated at the altar. Besides, none but a priest would have kept a beggar so far away from him. It was not per- mitted him to approach near to any thing that was impure, or permit any thing impure to be brought near to him. It is not necessary to charge the r7ch man with illiberality. His conduct was a part of his religion. As a Jew, and especially as a Jewish priest, he could not do otherwise. Again : the rich man, in distress, calls on Abraham for assistance. It is plain that the Jews were had in view. They boasted of their relation to Abraham ; and they carried their confidence to a pernicious ex- treme. They even expected exemption from just punishment, on account of their relation to that dis- tinguished patriarch. John the Baptist rebuked this unreasonable confidence, and so did Jesus. It would seem that there had been reasons for rebuking it be- fore, for it is said that this very story of the rich man and the beggar, was found in some old Jewish writ- ings, before the time of Christ. It was a legend, probably in common use among them; and its evi' dent purpose, in the first place, was to show that the Jews, as well as the Gentiles, might at last be lost. Their purple and fine linen would be of no avail, nor their avoidance of legal impurity. They must take THE PwICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 33 heed to the law and the prophets, or they would he no more safe at last than others. Here the Savior applies it to the evils they would bring upon themselves, by their rejection of the Gos- pel. And he makes their rejection of the Gospel the result of their not giving proper heed to Moses and the prophets. It is not uncommon for speakers and writers to make use of legends, relating to the tuture world, to illustrate their subjects; but m all such cases, it is understood, that the story is made up, without directly saving so, as no one ever comes back to report what "takes place there. This is the way we should look upon this story of the rich man. As is usual the moral comes in at the conclusion. _ "It they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." The object was to show the Jews that the evils they would experience might be avoided if they under- stood and would practice the teachings ot the Old Testament. He had told them so on many occasions before, but now he inculcates the same truth ; and to impress it upon them more eifectnally, he makes use of a legend, with which they were no doubt already acquainted. ^ • - ^i The truth he wishes to enff^rce, he puts into tlie mouth of Abraham. They would be more likely to receive it, if it came from him. Abraham says, They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. And this the patriarch says, not of the rich man him- self, but of his live brethren. The natural mierence to be drawn was, that he himself could have been saved from this place of torments, if he had been faithful to the law which he professed to love. By this indirect method, the Savior shows the Jews, and upon the authority of their renowned pro- genitor, that all their calamities would be attributable, not directly to their rejection of the Gospel, but to 34 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. their disobedience of the hiw. The reader will agree with me that this matter is managed >Tery skillfully. One would think that the Saviors rebukes and admo- nitions must have been irresistible, coming to them in the form here adopted. The Savior does not say to the Jews that they were disobedient to the law. He does not even choose a character to represent them that was outwardly immoral. On the contrary, the rich man was certainly' as exclusive as the law re- quired. But he makes Abraham settle the account with them. lie was one in whom they placed un- bounded confidence. He tells them, indirectly to be sure, but plainly, that their unhappiness would be owing to the disobedience of the law and the pro- phets. What shall we now say of the beggar? Plainly he was as tit a representative of the Gendles, as the rich man was of the Jews. While the rich man was yet living, the condition of the beggar was wretched and forlorn. When the rich man died, and found himself in torment, the beggar also died, and was carried to Abraham's bosom. This was exceedingly significant. The position the Jews had claimed for themselves, is denied them, and assigned to those whom they de- spised. The full meaning of the passage is partly concealed. Lying on the bosom, as at a feast, is what is referred to. The posture the Jews observed at table, was such a reclining one, that he who sat or reclined next to another, nearly leaned on his bosom. John leaned on Jesus' bosom at the last supper. And to express intimacy, it is said of the Savior, that he was in (or on) the bosom of the Father. Here then is Lazarus, — the representative of the Gentile world, reclining, at a splendid entertainment, on the bosom of the patriarch Abraham ; while the rich man, — the representative of the Jews, is afar off, and is not permitted a drop of water to cool his tongue. THE EICII MAN ATSTD LAZAEUS. 35 The mcanino; is, tliat tlic Gentiles, having embraced the faitli of Abraham, which the Jews wonhl not do, are now seated at the Gospel feast, while the Jews are shut out. The same idea is exprossoc) in other passages, where it is said, that many shall come from the east and from the west, from the north and from the south, and shall sit down (recline as at a table is the meaning of the original) with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But the children of the kingdom (the Jews or rich man) shall be cast out into outer dark- ness, where shall be wx'eping and gnashing of teeth. To be carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom, may represent tlie agency of the apostles, by whose preaching, mainly, the Gentiles were converted and brought into the kingdom of God. The sores of the beggar may denote the moral defilement of the whole Gentile world; and the dogs may refer to the heathen philosophers and moralists, who sought to lieal the spiritual diseases of the people. And, it is easy to find scriptural examples of the usage in all these cases. But these things, and some others that we may not notice at all, we deem unimportant, and shall pass them by with little or no attention. It is well understood that many things are mentioned, in a par- able, that are not important, and only serve for orna- ment, or to connect things that are important. It has often been asked, "What is meant by the five brethren ? It would be no detriment to our interpre- tation, if we should say, that there is no particular meaning to be attached to this circumstance. We used to think the five brethren meant the Samaritans, and there are pretty good reasons for that opinion. But we are now more inclined to believe that the five brethren are introduced with a view to make the re- buke of the rich man more indirect, and therefore, really more eflective. Abraham does not say to the 36 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. rich man, " You might have kept out of this place of torment, if you had taken heed to Moses and the prophets." JSTo ; Abraham does not say this of the rich man himself; but he says it of his live brethren. It was an indirect way of saying the same thing of the rich man ; but it was a more generous way, as the other would have seemed reproachful and heart- less. Wo have a saying like this: — '^ One man is whij^bed over another's shoulders." That is what Abraham did in this case. And we think the live brethren vvero mentioned for this very purpose, and for no other. The upshot of the whole matter is, that the Scribes and Pharisees, who were present and heard these parables, saw themselves accused of bringing all their calamities upon themselves, by their unfaithfulness to the law and the prophets. Jesus does not say this to them. He makes Abra- ham to say it — not to them, nor of them directly, but of their five brethren. How admirably this was done ! Surely nothing could exceed the skill with which the Savior rebukes, and instructs, and con- founds his adversaries. There is one thing alluded to in the parable, in connection with the five brethren, that ought not to be passed over, as it shows conclusively that the com- mon interpretation of this parable is not correct. The five brethren are referred to the Old Testament, for all necessary information about the place of tor- ment. This is very singular, for we would like to know, where, in the Old Testament, this place of tor- ment, (if it be hell in the future world,) is spoken of? We say there is no such place. Doctor George Campbell, a celebrated orthodox theologian and critic, says there is no place where this subject is mentioned. Many other celebrated writers, of the same scliool, have said the same. How could the five brethren learn any thing about a place of future torment, from THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS. 37 Moses and the prophets, when Moses and the pro- phets are wholly silent as to such a place ? They could obtain, from Moses and the prophets, all neces- sary information, as to the temporal punishment to which they were exposed, but not of the eternal pun- ishment. It is therefore certain that the parable refers to temporal and not eternal punishment. The only impoi'tant topic that remains to be dis- cussed, is the duration of the punishment represented in this passage. The tigm-e employed does not settle this question. The gulf was impassable. But a gulf that is impassable at one time, may be passable at another; and indeed it may even cease to exist. There is a law of nature that tends to fill up all gulfs. There is also a moral law, that is equally efficient, that tends to remove all distinctions among men of which gulfs in nature are emblematic. The prophet says that. Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain ; and all flesh shall see the salvation of God. Paul refers to the same separation between Jews and Gentiles, and calls it a wall of partition ; but he says that Jesus came to break down that wall, and t(j bring both Jews and Gentiles together, and of the twain to make one. In another j^assage, he speaks still more plaiidy. He says expressly that God has not cast away his pe(_>- ple ; that they have not stumbled that they should fall ; that blindness in part has happened to them, till the fullness of the Gentiles should come in, and then all Israel should be saved ; that God had included them dU in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all. The parables we have been considering, including the text, have reference to the Jews and Gentiles, under the two dispensations. There is no reason for 38 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOR. believing that, on the whole, the one class was better than the other ; or that, in the end, one will be treated better than the other. It was not altogether the mis- fortune of the Gentiles that they were unhappy. It was their fault. The jDOverty of the beggar, and his sores, are the result of his sins, as well as his misfor- tunes. But his punishment was not perpetual. Why then claim that the punishment of the rich man is so? The Gentiles sinned and were punished. The Jews sinned and are now being punished. The ])unish- ment of the one came to an end, why not that of the other ? All these parables teach that punishment is disci- plinary. In that of the prodigal son, the doctrine is set forth very clear!}'. His punishment wrought his reformation. If the elder brother does wrong, what shall hinder his punishment from having the same effect ? He refused to go in to tlie supper. When he has remained out long enough, so as to be willing to eat the husks fed to the swine, no doubt he will be willing to come in, and sit down at the father's table. And there is abundant evidence tiiat the father will be as willing to receive him, as he was the other. Bear in mind that this elder brother is the rich man. We insist that, if punishment is reformatory with one of the two brothers, it should be so regarded with the other. The steward was dismissed from his lord's service, because he was unfaithful. Who can say that he will always be unfaithful 'i He may not find his plan of making friends with his master's customers, to work as welt as he expected. Such dishonest tricks are not apt to work well. And, if at last, he should be com- pelled to dig or to beg, he may ultimately find that honesty is the best policy, and become a faithful, hon est man. Who shall say, in this case, that he wil. not be restored to the confidence of his lord, and rein- stated in his former position? This steward is the THE RICH MAN AND LAZAEUS. 39 rich man, and the pimishraent of the one will termi- nate with that of the other. In all the cases brought before us, in these parables, there is no intrinsic worth to be attached to one of the parties, that does not belong to the other. The lost sheep was as valuable as the sheep not lost. The same (A' the pieces of silver. The same of the two brothers ; the same of the steward and his customers ; the same of the rich man and Luzarus. Why then should the fate of the one, be essentially different from that of the other ? It can not be. The interest which the owner of the sheep took in his animals, and the effort he made to save, even one of them, points to God as he stands related to his children. The father of the prodigal son and of the elder brother, is a faint representation of the Great Fatlier of all man- kind. Shall such a Father feel no interest in his chil- dren? — or an interest in one, that he does not in others ? Is not the rich man as much a child of God, and an object of his love, as the beggar ? We conclude by remarking, that all the surround- ings of this parable, favor the construction we have given of it. And the principles inculcated in the other parables, in the same discourse, forbid that we believe in the endless punishment of the rich man. We must not make one of these parables to contradict the others. If the one makes the Creator to go after his wandering children, till he finds them, and restores them to safety. If the one makes the Creator kind and forgiving and impartial — if this be so, we must give such a construction to the others, as shall not conflict with these views. We submit, whether our construction is not the only one that makes all of them harmonious. It is the great fault of readers and interpreters, that they do not look with sufficient attention, to the con- nection and circumstances of a passage that involves 40 BIBLICAL EXPOSITOE. some difficulties. That is especially true of the one we have been considering. I can not conceive that we have any right to take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, out from the place it occupies, and en- deavor to explain it by itself, having no reference to the parables with which it is connected. They were all spoken on one occasion, and all consecutively, by the divine author ; and what he has joined together we should not ]")ut asunder. It is one of the plainest facts, that one of these parables teaches the disciplin- ary nature of punishment. If then another parable, connected with this, speaks of punishment, without connecting this idea with it, we must not conclude that the idea is repudiated. This sets the Savior against himself. It makes him to assert a truth and then contradict it. It is farther certain, that one of these parables represents the Great Father, as using means for the recovery and salvation of his children, and as being successful. Suppose every parable does not contain this thought. Is it, therefore, to be ex- cluded and denied? This would be inconsistent. We must associate all the parables together, and accept the doctrines which they all teach. They are not contradictory ; and we have no right to make them so, with a view to build up a false and perni- cious theory, having its origin in heathenism. BIBLICAL RBVIIZlTir s OR, NEW AND IMPROVED COMMENTARY ON -THE BIBLJ By Rkv. W. E. MANLEY, Author and Piblisukk. This Woi^k was commenced a few years since, and now tliei-« are three Volumes published. These three Volumes complete the Commentary on the Five Books of Moses. The plan o^ which tlie Work is constructed, is entirely new, and, beyond j doubt, is a great imprt)vement on the old Comnjentaries. Tlu Scriptures are not ex])lained continuously, or in the order o chaptei-8 and verses, which is the usual method; but thev sltL explained by subjects. Whatever part of the Bible is embracer in any Volume, every subject in that part is illustrated and ex- plained. In this way all the subjects in the Bible come iindei review in the progress of the Work. Thus, by means of an Index, alphabftically arranged, any subject can be' found a^'once; and, if desiiiible, that subject can be pursued through all the Vol- umes ; and then the reader has all thei-e is abe^Jt it in the Bible^ and all requisite explanations. Nothing like this can be done with the other Commentaries. ^ This Work has received the unqualified approbation of the lilieral press, and of the (K'nomination to which the author be- longs. He means to desci-ve that approbation ; and if the peo- ple will sustain him, he will, by and by, give them a cotnplete, series of books that shall reward their aid and influence in it^ behalf. Ill health, as one reafeon, and the condition of the coun- try, as anothei-, have kept him from publishing the books as rap- idly as he otherwise would have doue. lie trusts that ere lono- the j-eturn of peace to the country, the return of quiet to the people, the reduction of prices, and the improved health of him- self, will permit a more rapid issuing of the books. In the meantime, we must wait and hope. We could quote any number of names of our best men, from whom we have received commendations, but this is unnecessarv. All admit that such a Work is needed, and if any one doubV> whether he shall be pleased with it, tlie best way to satisfy him- j self, is, to purchase a single Volume, and make up his' mind ] from that. The books are sold separately oiv by the set. Vol umes 1st and 2d, $1.50 each; Volume 3d, $2.00; the set, $6.0U. In Clubs ol' t\vo or more, each taking a set, 1 will defray the expense. ' ' Address the author at his residence, 118 West Polk Street Chicitgo. III. W. E. MANLEY. J Januakv, 1865. • I P. S. It would be a very easy matter to circulate this Work extensively, if soim one in each Imality, where we have friends, would undertake the business. Then is no place, wliere at least two names could not be obtained. Do not wait for tin books to be brought to you. We can not visit all places, and it is too expensive to send agent.-;. There is a much better way. Let each get a neighbor to join him and send on. Who will do thus, and so do himself a favor, assist the publish er, and benefit the world? W. E. M. PAMPHLET BINDER :Z^ Syracuse, N. Y Stockton, Colif. DATE DUE DEMCO 38-297 BS2418.IVI279 The rich man and Lazarus... mi'r III Till""'"^'"' Semmary-Speer Library 1 1012 00066 0219 :'«S».-;*T^ .1 .«rw-;: -'^il«k>..._J»-