I researched the parable further and found some other interesting observations.

Andrew, you added earlier that it was unlikely Lazarus symbolized the Gentiles because Lazarus is a Jewish name, but here is something interesting John Lightfoot points out:

Quote:

But perhaps there may be something more aimed at in the name: for since the discourse is concerning Abraham and Lazarus, who would not call to mind Abraham and Eliezer his servant, one born at Damascus, a Gentile by birth, and sometime in posse the heir of Abraham; but shut out of the inheritance by the birth of Isaac, yet restored here into Abraham’s bosom? Which I leave to the judgment of the reader, whether it might not hint the calling of the Gentiles into the faith of Abraham.

This is interesting to me. Eliezar, a Gentile, was to become Abraham’s heir, but because Abraham had a son born unto him, Elizar was excluded.

Pay attention to this verse:

Quote:

For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment (Luk 16:28).

This Rich Man was a descendent of Abraham (cf. Luk 16:24, Luk 16:25: “father” and “son”). The mention of “five” brothers could be very significant.

Ernest L. Martin comments:

Quote:

The Israelite tribe that finally assumed possession of both the kingdom and priesthood, and the tribe which became the representative one of all the promises given to Abraham, was Judah. There can not be the slightest doubt of this when the whole parable is analyzed. Remember that Judah had “five brothers.” The Rich Man also had the same (verse 28).

“The sons of Leah; [1] Reuben; Jacob’s firstborn, and [2] Simeon, and [3] Levi, and Judah, and [4] Issachar, and [5] Zebulun.” Genesis 35:23

“And Leah said … ‘now will my husband be pleased to dwell with me; for I have born him six sons.’” Genesis 30:20

Judah and the Rich Man each had “five brethren.” Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst “Moses and the prophets” (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the “oracles of God” (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and physical), Christ was showing that he had been unfaithful with his responsibilities. When the true inheritance was to be given, Judah was in “hades” and “in torment” while Lazarus (Eleazar, the faithful steward) was now in Abraham’s bosom. He was finally received into the “everlasting habitations” (verse 9).

Concerning the gulf fixed between them he continues:

Quote:

Identifying the chasm of the parable with the Jordan rift unfolds a beautiful symbolic story well recognized in contemporary Jewish allegorical narratives of the time. In the center of this “gulf” was the River Jordan. It divided the original land of promise given to Abraham from ordinary Gentile lands. The west side of Jordan represented the area that the Bible considered the original Holyland. As the angel said to Joshua: “Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon stand is holy. And Joshua did so” (Joshua 5:15). When the Israelites finally entered the chasm of the Jordan and crossed the river, they then considered themselves in the Holyland the land promised to Abraham and his seed!

All these observations are good to keep in mind.

With these observations, a clear parable about a coming judgment upon unfaithful Judah and the inclusion of the poor, sinners, and even Gentiles into the arms of Abraham, that is, a New Covenant, is enhanced specifically to show that the ones by birth God once made a covenant with, by their unfaithfulness, were to be destroyed, whereas the Gentiles who in past times were excluded from Abraham were to be counted for his seed according to faith.

Do you think for a first century Jew any of these observations would come to mind? Do you think Jesus took a common Greco-Roman story and altered it for his own intentions? Or did he come up with the story out of thin air?

What should we do with the implications, regardless of the symbols, of life after death? Should this death represent the transition from one age to another of sorts?

Lastly, if the Jews picked up on the above observations, how pissed at Jesus do you think they would have been? ;)