The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

II. Literalism Violates Consistency, Vitiates Christ’s Witness, Overturns Scripture Testimony

1. SCOFIELD MAKES PASSAGE WHOLLY LITERAL

Before we survey critically the inconsistencies of a literal interpretation, let us note one representative example of championship of the literalistic exposition, and its involvements. Dr. C. I. Scofield, in his well-known Scofield Reference Bible, in his note on Luke 16:23, says that the “hell” of this text—the Greek hades, and its Hebrew equivalent she’ol—is the “unseen world,” “the place of departed human spirits between death and the resurrection.” He then sharply distinguishes between hades (1) “before the ascension of Christ,” and (2) hades “since the ascension of Christ.” Advocating the literalistic interpretation, Scofield states that these passages “make it clear” that “hades was formerly in two divisions, the abodes respectively of the saved and the lost.” CFF1 259.1

The “former” (the “abode of the saved”) was then “called ‘paradise,’ and ‘Abraham’s bosom.’” Scofield then states that “both designations were Talmudic, but adopted by Christ in Luke 16:22; Luke 23:43.” And he declares, “the blessed dead were with Abraham, they were conscious and were ‘comforted.’” Then he adds: CFF1 259.2

“The lost were separated from the saved by a ‘great gulf fixed’ (Luke 16:26). The representative man of the lost who are now in hades is the rich man of Luke 16:19-31. He was alive, conscious, in full exercise of his faculties, memory, etc., and in torment.” ⁴ (Italics supplied.) CFF1 259.3

2. INCONSISTENCIES INVOLVED IN LITERAL INTERPRETATION

This story of Dives and Lazarus is either the narrative of a literal, historical episode or it is merely a fictional parable. It cannot be both, or half and half, as some seek to make it. If literal, it must be true to fact and consistent in detail. If it be a parable, then only the primary moral truth to be conveyed need concern us, with the narrative subject to the recognized licenses and limitations of an imaginary illustration. CFF1 260.1

However, many insist on its literality. But a literal application breaks down under the weight of its own absurdities and contradictions, as will become apparent under scrutiny, and when cited to support the popular concept of the Innate Immortality of the soul. For example, contenders for literalism hold Dives and Lazarus to be disembodied spirits; that is, destitute of bodies. Here, then, we have two ghosts, or shades, devoid of bodies and bodily organs—though there is not the remotest reference to the soul or spirit of man. Yet Dives is here represented as having “eyes” that see, a “tongue” that speaks, and as seeking relief from cooling water by means of the “finger” of Lazarus—real bodily parts. That surely must be an embarrassing inconsistency to the literalist who treats them as historical and literal. But that was all part of the Jewish tale. CFF1 260.2

Further, an unbridgeable, material gulf is incomprehensible on the hypothesis of immaterial spirit beings in the nether regions. Disembodied “souls,” or “spirits,” are supposed to penetrate or pass everywhere. CFF1 260.3

Again, if “Abraham’s bosom” is figurative, then “Abraham” cannot logically be literal. It would surely be the height of incongruity to have Abraham literal but his bosom figurative! As to Abraham, in Scripture record he died and his sons buried him (Genesis 25:8, 9), and there is no account of his resurrection, as was the case with Moses (Deuteronomy 34:5; Jude 9; Matthew 17:3). According to Hebrews 11:8-19, like all the patriarchs, Abraham has not yet received the promise, but is awaiting that “better resurrection” at the second coming of Christ (Hebrews 11:35, 39, 40). CFF1 260.4

Among other incongruities, literalism places Heaven and Hell within geographical speaking and seeing distance of each other—with saints and sinners eternally holding futile converse. (Ponder once more the case of a husband and wife so situated, or a parent and child.) Again, Dives lifted up “his eyes, being in torments,” and said, “... I am tormented in this flame” (Luke 16:23, 24), but nothing is said in the parable as to the duration of his torment. But according to clear statements of Scripture, any such torment occurs only in connection with the second death, and follows, but never precedes, the Second Advent (2 Thessalonians 1:7, 8). CFF1 261.1

Such a conflicting literalistic contention clearly goes too far. The fires of Gehenna do not precede the Second Advent. And in this parable, Dives is in Hades, not in Gehenna. But when the figurative and fictional character of the parable of Dives and Lazarus is recognized, then the plaguing incongruities as to time, place, space, distance, et cetera, all vanish. The story, with all its inconsistencies, is simply told to convey an important moral or spiritual truth. CFF1 261.2

3. LITERALISM CONTRADICTS CHRIST’S EXPLICIT DECLARATIONS

But that is not all. To use this parable as proof that men receive their rewards at death is squarely to contradict Christ Himself, who explicitly states that the righteous and the wicked receive their reward “when the Son of man shall come in his glory” (Matthew 25:31-44). He definitely placed the recompense at the resurrection, the time of harvest, and end of the world—when the “wheat” of God’s people are gathered unto His garner, and the wicked, like “tares,” are bundled for burning (Matthew 13:30, 49; Luke 14:14). CFF1 261.3

As elsewhere seen, Jesus referred to “hell” (Matthew 10:28), “hell fire” (Matthew 5:22), the “resurrection of damnation” (John 5:29), the “damnation of hell” (Matthew 23:33), and “eternal damnation” (Mark 3:29). But He always put them as future, not present, and as following, not preceding, His second coming (Matthew 25:32, 33, 46). And Jesus declared that He was going to prepare a place for us in the “many mansions” of His “Father’s house” (John 14:2). But He states that He will not “come again” to “receive” us until His second advent (John 14:3). CFF1 261.4

4. LITERALISM CONTRADICTS INSPIRED REVELATION’S DICTUMS

Furthermore, if the narrative is literal, then the beggar received his reward and the rich man his punishment immediately upon death, in the interim before the judgment day and the consequent separation of the good and evil. But such a procedure is repugnant to all justice. Paul said that God “hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness” (Acts 17:31). That was still future in apostolic times. And the day of separation will not come until “the Son of man shall come in his glory ... : and before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another” (Matthew 25:31, 32). CFF1 262.1

Christ’s own promise is, “Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall he” (Revelation 22:12). That tallies with His promise, “Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just” (Luke 14:14). That also was Paul’s personal expectation: “There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day” (2 Timothy 4:8). CFF1 262.2

And, as seen again and again, literalism squarely contradicts the uniform testimony of the Old Testament—that the dead, both righteous and wicked, without reference to character, lie silent and unconscious in the sleep of the first death until the resurrection day. In the Biblical Hades there is no speech, sight, or pain. It is not a place of torture. But the Pharisees had made God’s Word void, as concerns the condition of the dead, ⁵ by their “traditions” derived from pagan Platonic philosophy, which in turn had been borrowed from Egypt, Babylon, and Persia. So it was that Dives is here pictured as in a place of torment, living in insufferable flames. It was simply Hebraized Platonism, and was in no way condoned or endorsed by Christ. CFF1 262.3