I don't often post here. But I found the link to this thread and followed it. Though I did not read the 900+ posts, I read many of them. There seems to be a great variety of view concerning the parable of the 'Rich man'. But just for a moment, I want for you to consider what it might mean if the parable was actually based in fact and on real life events, as so many of the Master's parables where. This is made manifest in His explanations to His disciples.
Most consider Luke a gentile, though it is not specified in scripture, only surmised from various interpretations of places and events. Please receive what is offered in the spirit in which it is given; an attempt to apply context to these difficult matters so that alternative conclusions might be made.
As to the matter of Luke being a Gentile, a Proselyte (translated in the Septuagint as 'stranger' in English) or a Jew; this is far from a settled matter. But I have a hard time believing that a Gentile or a Proselyte knew so much about the matters of the Sadducees (the Aaronic priests) that many believe his book was an indictment leveled at them as a group. I'm just sayin'...
There was a long established Jewish community in Antioch at that time of Luke's birth and upbringing. I have no problem believing that Luke was a natural Greek speaking Jew with a higher education (have you met Luke, my son the doctor?). That certainly isn't beyond the bounds of logic or the historical record. But I digress. Let me see if I can connect the dots so that you can see where I am coming from.
Many believe that the first portion of the Book of Luke was a Messianic account addressed to Theophilus (son of Annas and brother-in-law of Caiaphas), the Cohen Gadol in Jerusalem from 37-41. There were six total of this group of direct descendants and in-laws that kept the control of the priestly service. These 'brothers' kept control of the wealth of Israel 'in the family' for many years.
One story goes that 'Lazarus and the Rich Man' (and the Rich Man's 5 'brothers' that still lived), was a parable and a prophecy by the Messiah, about the family that continuously controlled the High Priest 'concession' awarded by Rome. Re-read Luke 16:19-31 with this in mind and tell me what you think, OK? Perhaps Luke was trying to convince the 'Zadokim' (Sadducees) that there was more to the spirit world and the resurrection that they were wiling to publicly concede.
If Luke was a 'stranger' as some surmise, he risked much by chastening the Cohen Gadol in a written document; a letter that was obviously circulated publicly at one point. But as a Jew with a pedigree and a claim in the land, his rights were different under 'the Law' (at least the way they interpreted it). Something to consider, but that isn't all. Luke's bona fides as a blood-born Jew and advocate of a resurrected Messiah would certainly seem less treasonous to the Cohen Gadol (High Priest). Luke would just be another Pharisee disciple of Messiah like Nicdemus and Joseph.
But, consider what Luke proposed in the first few stories. He confirmed the widely held, miraculous conception of a well known prophet by a Zadokim (Cohen or Priest). He then went on to link the conception of the Messiah to this account, making Y'shua not only a 'Son of David' but son of the daughter of a Cohen too. He prominently mentions that this occurred in the 6th month (of Elishabeth's pregnancy as some suppose, but also of the months of the Moed; in the traditional seasons of observance and the Appointed times of YHVH) and concluding with Mary being pregnant by the time she went to stay with her cousin. [This would have been in the 7th month if my supposition bears out...]
If blood-born Jew and an educated, natural Greek speaking Asian truly was Luke's pedigree, background and perspective, it makes his account of Zacharius and Elishabeth, the annunciation of the Messiah in the '6th month' (or season of teshuvah), and the prospect of the conception of the Messiah on Yom Teruah (the feast of Trumpets) compelling. This too especially after going on later to relate a prophecy about the potential damnation of Theophilus and his brethren (Lazarus and the Rich man) in such close proximity and relation to the birth account of John the Baptist (a Cohen prophet), the Annunciation and conception of the Messiah and the verifiable account of an
actual resurrection of the dead (that of Lazurus, as all births and deaths were reported to and recorded by the Temple priests).
Just something to consider...
