April 14

NT – luke 16:19-17:10
Here is what Wikipedia has to say about Lazarus, the beggar and the interpretations of the story:

Interpretations


Illustration by Gustave Doré of the Rich man and Lazarus.
There are different views on the historicity and origin of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus.[8] The story is unique to Luke and is not thought to come from the hypothetical Q document.[1]
[edit] As a literal, historical event
Some Christians view the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man as an actual event which was related by Jesus to his followers;[9] this was generally the view of the medieval Church. According to this view, this story is not a parable but literal biography. Supporters of this view point to the amount of detail in the story. For example, in no other parable does Jesus give a character's personal name, but refers to the characters as "a certain man", "a sower", etc.
[edit] As a parable created by Jesus
Other Christians consider that this is a parable created by Jesus and told to his followers.[10] Tom Wright[11] and Joachim Jeremias[12] both treat it as a "Parable". Proponents of this view argue that the story of Lazarus and the rich man has much in common with other stories which are agreed upon parables, both in language and content (e.g. the reversal of fortunes, the use of antithesis, and concern for the poor).
[edit] Luther, a parable of the conscience
Martin Luther taught that the story was a parable about rich and poor in this life and the details of the afterlife not to be taken literally:
"Therefore we conclude that the bosom of Abraham signifies nothing else than the Word of God,.... the hell here mentioned cannot be the true hell that will begin on the day of judgment. For the corpse of the rich man is without doubt not in hell, but buried in the earth; it must however be a place where the soul can be and has no peace, and it cannot be corporeal. Therefore it seems to me, this hell is the conscience, which is without faith and without the Word of God, in which the soul is buried and held until the day of judgment, when they are cast down body and soul into the true and real hell." (Church Postil 1522-23)[13]
[edit] Lightfoot, a parable against the Pharisees


Illustration of Lazarus at the rich man's gate by Fyodor Bronnikov, 1886.
John Lightfoot treated the parable as a parody of Pharisee belief concerning the Bosom of Abraham, and from the connection of Abraham saying the rich man's family would not believe even if the parable Lazarus was raised, to the priests failure to believe in the resurrection of Christ:
"Any one may see, how Christ points at the infidelity of the Jews, even after that himself shall have risen again. From whence it is easy to judge what was the design and intention of this parable" (From the Talmud and Hebraica, Volume 3‎)[14]
E. W. Bullinger in the Companion Bible cited Lightfoot's comment above,[15] expanding it to include coincidence to lack of belief in the resurrection of the historical Lazarus (John 12:10, see below). Additionally Bullinger considered that the lack of identification "parable" by Luke is because contains a parody of the view of the afterlife in the story:
"It is not called a parable because it cites a notable example of the Pharisee's tradition which had been brought from Babylon. See many other examples in Lightfoot vol.xii. pp.159-68" (Companion Bible, p.1488)
[edit] Drioux, a parable against the Sadducees
An alternative explanation of the parable is a satirical parable against the Sadducees. One writer to identify the Sadducees as the target was Johann Nepomuk Sepp.[16] The arguments in favour of identification of the Rich Man as the Sadducees are (1) the wearing of purple and fine linen, priestly dress,[17] (2) the reference to "five brothers in my father's house" as an allusion to Caiaphas' father in law Annas, and his five sons who also served as high priests according to Josephus,[18] (3) Abraham's statement in the parable that they would not believe even if he raised Lazarus, and then the fulfillment that when Jesus did raise Lazarus of Bethany the Sadducees not only did not believe, but attempted to have Lazarus killed again: "So the chief priests made plans to put Lazarus to death as well" (John 12:10). This last interpretation had wide circulation in France during the 1860-'90s as a result of having been included in the notes of the pictorial Bible of Abbé Drioux[19]
[edit] Perry, a parable of a new covenant
Simon Perry has argued that the Lazarus of the parable (an abbreviated transcript of 'Eleazer') refers to Eleazer of Damascus, Abraham's servant. In Genesis 15, God says to Abraham "this man will not be your heir" (Gen 15:4). Perry argues that this is why Lazarus is outside the gates of Abraham's perceived descendent. By inviting Lazarus to Abraham's bosom, Jesus is redefining the nature of the covenant. It also explains why the rich man assumes Lazarus is Abraham's servant.[20]


For me, this parable has always been a cautionary tale. Since the real Lazarus is no longer living, I don’t really care if Jesus is talking to Caiaphus or not. But I do care about my own skin.
Let’s face it, I live a very comfortable life. I am only hungry when I am trying to diet. I live in temperature controlled, smooshy bed, nice comfy chair to do my computer work – my computer!! – and most importantly of all, I am healthy. So is most of my family.
But there are many who do not have one or any of these luxuries. I clearly am the rich man in the story. This is another one of those checklist things – feed the hungry, bind up their wounds, visit them in their infirmities. But more importantly, care in the moment!
I suspect, like so many other stories in the Bible, that this one has a serious back story. I think I will put it on my list to discuss with Jesus if I make it to heaven – through the narrow gate, don’t you know.