I am wondering - perhaps this has been already mentioned by others - why the writer of Luke when he composed his gospel he comes up with this exemplary story.
I assume that he received it from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:1-2) and included it in his gospel under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
I wondering if he used it because of the interesting original setting in a conversation with pharisees or because of a more general benefit for Luke's audience who were the educated pagans and the Jewish-Christians. He who was worked so accurate and made use of confident written sources, why did he insert this exemplary story about a rich man in his text?
There are a number of unique parables and stories in Luke's gospel. Both accounts in Luke 16 would have had definite benefit for Jesus' audience; a blessing for the downtrodden who would gain insight into the hypocrisy of their self-righteous leaders, relieving them of false fears and false trust...and a potential blessing for the religious leaders themselves who might gain some insight into their own false teachings and practice. At least Jesus might have blessed them with doubt. How much a pagan audience would benefit, I'm not sure. But they would certainly gain some insight into the religious establishment that crucified Jesus Christ...and continued to persecute the church prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
A pagan audience would not have been aware of inner-jewish terms or interested however in the inner-jewish dispute between Pharisees and rabbi Jesus and for it also the satirical value of the story and Jesus rhetoric ability to mimic their teachings in the original setting might have been of little value, at least it would have been no easy stuff.
Forget about Revelation. All the synoptic gospels deal with the Olivet discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) on the end of Jerusalem and the world...and certainly that is not easy stuff to understand and find agreement on. Not everything in scripture is easy or meant to be easy to understand. Actually, many of the parables that Jesus told had little value even to the Jews at the time as well (because they had closed their eyes and hardened their hearts as Isaiah prophesied). Even today, we can come to false conclusions if we don't do a little research to understand historical context.
Perhaps Luke had a certain Lazarus in mind when he took up this story in the gospel, as a doctor he was certainly interested in such gruesome treated poor people, treated as unclean and anyway helpless, people who were "refugees" in their own country, whom dogs licked their sores, because they could not move from the place, where they were deposited.
Well, only weeks later, Jesus raised his friend Lazarus, for the glory of God...and yet the rulers in Israel's response was not to worship, but to eradicate both Jesus .... and Lazarus. Jesus knew what was in man. Many people disagree with His analysis. Still today many would rather slay the righteous than befriend them. That is why we need a Saviour and a new birth, contrary to WTS teachings.
Did Luke leave the story over for us to interprete it?