Here is a post I found at Rethinkinghell.com, I did not write it, but I found it to be excellent and challenging:
Most scholars today recognize this passage as a parable. It is cast amongst parables, and in it we find familiar themes. The one argument against it being a parable (Jesus using a name for one of the characters), is settled quickly when the significance of the name is born out, adding depth to the overall interpretation of the parable. With that being said,
The parable doesn't discuss salvation through Christ and really doesn't focus on what happens as a result. Rather it is a parable centered around the immediate circumstances they found themselves in. The main focus of the parable is the great class disparity we find. He begged at the gate. He begged for bread. Bread to the rich was not used primarily to eat, but as napkins. Lazarus begged for the napkins of the rich, so that he could eat. How is that for economic disparity? His vulnerability is vividly expressed in the account of the dogs licking his wounds. He was unclean, unable to keep himself from becoming even fruther unclean. He was weak and broken, could not compete for jobs, he was forced to beg. He knew his end was near.
Now typically, he would not have been allowed to reside at the gate of the rich man. He would have been cleared out, much like we find today in certain districts of the city. Jesus however uses creative license to bring together two images that were structurally and intentionally kept apart by the wealthy.
An interesting note is that the poor man, who is nameless in society is named in Jesus’ parable. He is not faceless, he is significant. At the same time, the rich man who is well known and has amassed reputation with his wealth, is unknown and has no name to associate with in the parable.
Even further is that his (Lazarus’
name is significant. It may simply mean "God has helped." It may refer to Eliezer (gen 15:2) who according to the midrashic tradition was sent to "observe how the 'tenants' [were] dealing with [their] property" and their obligation to show hospitality.
Now they both die, but the rich man alone is said to be buried. His prestige afforded him a proper burial.
Now the first part of the parable discusses the great chasm between the rich and poor on earth. The gate serves as a boundary marker. It shuts out Lazarus and symbolizes the power and elite nature of the rich man. However, the bible also has a great tradition of the gate being a place of judgment, and Jesus' hearers certainly would have recalled this to mind as the parable was told (ie Amos 5:12,15a).
Lazarus is brought to Abraham's bosom? What is this? The idea of returning to their fathers? Image of a child in his fathers lap? A place of rest for martyrs? An image of honor reclining at the bosom of the host (John 13:23)? Or does this confirm the connection as Eliezer returning home to Abraham? Whatever the case, the honor and prestige and comfort of Abraham's bosom is highlighted. This feast would now be contrasted with the great feasts of the rich man in our story.
We know the rich man went to Hades, which we must not confuse with hell. It was a place of death, where everyone was thought to attend. The rich man continues to call Abraham "father" and Abraham still calls him his "child." The point here is the great role reversal. Lazarus is now on top and the rich man is now on the bottom. In fact while Lazarus begged for bread, bread that was often used as napkins, the rich man now begs for what is even MORE common, water. What a reversal! This point rings in the ears of those who lived through this sort of thing every day. And another still, as the gate protected and separated the two on earth, the chasm now does the same in reverse order in Jesus parable.
The rich man makes requests, as though he is still privileged and accustomed to his will being carried out. He perceives himself as an elite, and Lazarus an errand boy. His perspective does not seem to have changed. His character and identity of roles remains consistent with his behavior on earth. Even further he KNEW Lazarus, which exposes him even further. He knew who he was, even though he ignored him in the parable. And as his commands are ignored he begs, never wailing, never repenting. Even in his begging, he only considers his family, those of the same social structure he has belonged to. He has not changed, his concern is for himself and those like him. He still strives to maintain the chasm he has always operated with, never acknowledging Lazarus as an equal in any way that would demand change upon him.
Abraham referenced the Torah, which apparently the rich man was familiar with. But in those days, much like today, the Torah was manipulated and it can be said there were two Torahs. One that spoke of justice, peace, and equality. And another that validated and substantiated disparity and injustice. He argues his case with Abraham, "No, Abraham." He is still an elite, still seeing religion as a keeper of his lifestyle, documenting righteous and wicked according to their prosperity. He bargains for special treatment even to the end for his family. He always used insider information, used priveledge to his advantage and even now in the predictment he is in he does the same. And since Torah does not seem to help him, he requires even yet ANOTHER messenger.
Even seeing everything he has seen, the Rich man still doesnt change, repent, think differently. The irony is apparent. He asks for someone to be sent to speak to his own loved ones thinking they will get the message, even though he has still yet to get it himself.
Bultmann argues the main point is that of signs, as Jesus often denounces to this wicked generation. The rich man thinks the signs are more adequate even than the Torah and prophets!
Still others see it as a warning to those who may be considered "brothers" that are ignoring the Torah (Jeremias; Schweizer).
I see it as an indictment. The rich man's position proved him callous, ignoring the kinship he shared and the commitment therein he had towards all of creation. Lazarus on the other hand never is said to be pious or patient or humble or even believing. Simply he was weak and vulnerable and outcasted (Mt 5/Lk. 6 anyone?).
The rich man asks for Lazarus to go back as a sign? There are COUNTLESS Lazarus' on every corner! Being shut out from society, being broken by immoral structures, validated by a selfish interpretation and application of Torah. Jesus says we will always have the poor with us. The question is, is that to suggest we should not trip? Or is it to suggest, according to this parable, that we should work hard and take care of them to make it not so (ie Dt. 15?).
Therefore the parable uses the every day scent of class disparity prepares for the second portion where we are exhorted to read Moses and the Prophets. The scriptures are being upheld as sufficient and evident of Jesus' message. It is an assault on the improper way it had been used to prop up the rich and shut out the poor.
Look at what Jesus says immediately preceding this parable:
14 Now the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him. 15 And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God. 16 "The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. 17 "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail.
This is exactly the point of the parable between the rich man and Lazarus. This is the proper interpretation of the parable that follows. He tells the parable to enforce this point.
Jesus prefaces His parable by talking about the elite being lovers of money and their public appearance. Their own sense of high esteem is nothing to God, but rather ones obligation to the scripture, and that provides a true status as belonging to the Kingdom of God. He concludes the parable saying this:
Luke 17:1 He said to His disciples, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! 2 "It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.
This is what Jesus is referencing. The privileged twisting of the law, the perverting of its justice to uphold the comfort of the wealthy and powerful. Likewise, these oral laws imposed man's law upon the people, masquerading as God's. This is the message that our parable is squeezed between. We can't assume that the message immediately preceding and immediately following the parable, while identical, have nothing to do with the proper interpretation of the parable in which they bookend? Of course it does!
In keeping with this then, it is very appropriate to see the rich man as representing the elite and powerful who still live on earth. And their attitude is one of privileged, barking orders and taking care of themselves.
Clearly this parable does not intend to teach about the afterlife, but rather the life we live in now. It is a parable, settled amongst parables
