of the Rich man and Lazarus. There are different views on the historicity and origin of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus. The story is unique to Luke and is not thought to come from the hypothetical
Q document. Supporters of this view point to a key detail in the story: the use of a personal name (Lazarus). By contrast, in all of the other parables Jesus refers to a central character by a description, such as "a certain man", "a sower", and so forth.
As a parable created by Jesus Other Christians consider that this is a parable created by Jesus and told to his followers.
Tom Wright and
Joachim Jeremias 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).
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:
Lightfoot: a parable against the Pharisees , 1886.
John Lightfoot (1602–1675) treated the parable as a parody of
Pharisee belief concerning the
Bosom of Abraham, as well as a metaphor for the future Jewish refusal to believe in Christ despite the resurrection, with Abraham saying the rich man's family would not believe even if the dead came back to life:
E. W. Bullinger in the Companion Bible cited Lightfoot's comment, and expanded it to include the coincidence that the Pharisees also didn't believe after the resurrection of Lazarus of Bethany (John 12:10). Bullinger considered that Luke did not identify the passage as a "parable" because it contains a parody of the Pharisee view of the afterlife. That is, Jesus did not endorse the afterlife depicted in the parable as literally existing, but instead is using the Pharisee's own afterlife imagery in order to deliver a prophecy about their coming rejection of him. Bullinger states:
A parable against the Sadducees The parable has also been interpreted as a
satirical attack on the
Sadducees. The Rich Man is identified as the Sadducees on similar lines as Cox, noting the Rich Man's wearing of purple and fine linen, priestly dress and identifying his five brothers as the five sons of Annas. Proponents also note that Abraham's statement that "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead." fits the Sadducees' rejection of the
Prophetical books of the Bible as well as their disbelief in a resurrection of the dead. This explanation was popularized in France in the 1860s–1890s by its inclusion in the notes of the pictorial Bible of
Abbé Drioux.
Perry: a parable of a new covenant Anglican theologian Simon Perry has argued that the Lazarus of the parable (an abbreviated transcript of "Eleazer") refers to
Eliezer of Damascus, Abraham's servant. In Genesis 15—a foundational covenant text familiar to any first century Jew—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 descendant. 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.
Friedrich Justus Knecht: a parable of the future life The Catholic German theologian Friedrich Justus Knecht (d. 1921), states that this parable gives "a glimpse of the future state, both for our consolation and as a warning." Because after this life there is "a life where everything is quite different from what it is on earth. Lazarus was poor, despised, racked with pain and hunger while he was on earth; but when he died, angels carried his soul to the abode of the just, where he received consolation." However the rich man who when on earth, "led what was apparently a magnificent life. He was esteemed and honoured, surrounded by flatterers, waited on by a host of servants, clad in costly clothes, and he feasted luxuriously every day. But all this magnificence lasted only a short time. He died and was lost for ever, and has been for centuries suffering unspeakable torments." Knecht also reflects on why the rich man was condemned writing: "Because he was a sensual man, an
epicurean, and religion was a matter of no consideration with him. His only thought was how to lead a pleasant life, and he neither troubled himself about the future, nor believed in a coming Redeemer. He led a life without prayer, without fear of hell or desire for heaven, a life without grace and without God." ==Afterlife doctrine==