Posted on

The illegal trial of Jesus — Luke 22:52-69

Verses 52-53: Romans distrusted subversives who acted secretly at night; here it is Jesus’ enemies, not Jesus, who act this way. People popularly associated night with evil, demons and witchcraft.

54: Taking Jesus at night to the high priest’s private home breached ancient legal protocol (both Jewish and Roman).

55: The guards, perhaps servants, may have planned to stay awake late for Passover, but some guards had to remain on watch during night in any case. To trespass on the high priest’s property required great courage from Peter.

56: Even in this household with many servants, the slave girl would (as we may infer from similar cases in antiquity) recognize that Peter did not belong to the household; he would also be clothed differently from the guards. (Residing in the Upper City and working for a priestly household, she might have seen Peter with Jesus in the temple courts.)

59: Galileans were noted for mispronouncing (from a Judean perspective) guttural sounds. Regional accents were hard to conceal (cf. Judges 12:6).

63: Jewish law did not allow mocking and beating a person before trial.

64: They may view Jesus as guilty of the crime of being a false prophet, misleading Israel (Deut 13:1-5).

66: Whatever informal deliberations may have occurred earlier, a daylight hearing was necessary for any semblance of legality. The groups noted here together constituted the Sanhedrin, Jerusalem’s municipal senate and the land’s highest Jewish court. Later tradition assigns to the Sanhedrin 71 members (including the high priest), seated in a semicircle around the high priest in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. In this period they must have met very close to the temple (see comment on Acts 23:10, 15). Not every member was necessarily present on every occasion, and especially during a festival this may be a specially called meeting of select members (cf. Luke 23:51).

67: For the Sanhedrin, demanding whether Jesus was “Messiah” was tantamount to asking whether he would challenge Rome, hence disturb the peace and their security (cf. 23:2). Yet later reports of Jewish law suggest that one could not force a prisoner to convict himself. A prophet could speak the truth while doubting that his hearers would accept it (Jeremiah 38:15).

69: Jesus is not a conventional “messiah” figure but the universal ruler of Dan 7:13-14. Luke simplifies the Jewish divine circumlocution “power” (Mk 14:62) for his Greek audience less familiar with it.

 

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

Posted on

The last supper — Mark 14:12-21

Verse 12: Technically the feast of unleavened bread immediately followed Passover, but by this period popular usage counted the Passover as part of the larger unleavened bread festival. Representatives from each household would have the lamb sacrificed at the temple, and the household would eat the meat that night.

13: Commentators often observe that, in contrast to leather wineskins, water jars were usually carried by women (often the matron of the home); thus a man doing so would be unusual enough to be recognizable. In well-to-do households (as apparently here), slaves would carry the water; running water was a great luxury, and in many cities people would collect water at public fountains.

14: People wanted to eat Passover within the city limits, so they often sought local hospitality, often leading to crowded accommodations, except in well-to-do homes (as apparently in 14:15).

15: Unless the house was unusually large (some were), the upper room would provide an intimate environment for just a few disciples (say, the Twelve; not many more). This house was presumably of significant size to support an upper room large enough even for twelve to recline. This suggests that this was a spacious home, apparently in Upper City Jerusalem (as opposed to the poorer Lower City, downwind of the sewers).

17: The Passover had to be eaten at night; because sundown came by about 6 p.m. in Jerusalem in April, they could have begun the meal at that time. Normally one or two families banded together to eat the lamb; here Jesus and the twelve function as a family unit.

20: Dipping bowls were particularly used at Passover; the dish here is probably Passover’s dish of bitter herbs. Hospitality and table fellowship established a covenant of friendship; to betray a former host or guest, much less a current one, was considered among the most despicable acts of treachery.

Some scholars suggest that dipping “with” Jesus could imply rebellion, since (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls) the leader should act first, and many ancient banquets seated people by rank. This interpretation would be likeliest if Judas reclined near Jesus, on the same couch (cf. Jn 13:26).

21: Various biblical passages (Job 3:3-26; Jer 20:14-18), early Jewish and Greek lamentations spoke of never having been born alive being preferable to selected worse fates.

 

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

Posted on

Zaccheus meets Jesus — Luke 19:1-10

Verse 2: As a border city, Jericho had a customs station. As one of Palestine’s wealthiest cities, in Judea’s most fertile region, Jericho would provide particularly lucrative tax business. It had a massive sunken garden, a Herodian palace (especially for winter use, given the inviting climate) and other wealthy domiciles. As a “chief” tax gatherer, Zaccheus would hire lower tax collectors and would contract for sales and customs taxes. But while Zaccheus could thus have acquired wealth without cheating, he apparently cheated anyway (19:8).

3: Many men in this era were about five feet tall, so Zaccheus would be shorter than this. People often paid more attention to tall people (though Zaccheus by virtue of his office commanded attention).

4: Unlike the Judean hill country, Jericho had a pleasant climate throughout the year. It was known especially for its palm trees (hence one of its traditional titles, Deut 34:3; 2 Chron 28:15) but also had many other trees, including sycamores. The kind of “sycamore” mentioned here resembles a fig tree and was easy to climb; it differs from the North American sycamore and European and Asian sycamore maple.Although houses in OT Jericho were closely packed, NT Jericho hosted spacious villas and parks, so a tree was handier than a rooftop.

5: Regardless of one’s status, one did not normally invite oneself to another’s home. Also unusual is Jesus’ willingness to accept table fellowship, which normally created a bond of friendship. Pharisees would not trust the table of a tax gatherer, because anyone unreligious enough to collect taxes certainly could not be trusted to tithe foodstuffs.

Jewish people recognized that one who could call the name of a person they had not met was a prophet. Because the journey to Jerusalem from Jericho was about 17 miles uphill (nearly a day’s journey), Jesus may have preferred to let his disciples rest in a place with sufficient accommodations before continuing their journey.

8: Zaccheus’ promise to make restitution treats his exploitation as theft (Ex 22:1-4). Pharisees, who tended to be lenient on legal punishments, required four- or fivefold restitution only for stolen oxen or sheep that were slaughtered or sold, and only if this was verified by witnesses. Zaccheus goes beyond this. Moreover, Judaism traditionally thought of restitution to receive forgiveness, but here it responds to grace instead of invites it.

Zaccheus could not imprison someone on his own authority, but he could make false reports to produce that outcome; his office would thus have given him power to intimidate and secure his demands, if he wished to do so.

9: Jewish people believed that God had made a covenant with Abraham’s descendants, so that most were destined for life except those who broke God’s covenant.

10: In Ezek 34:6, 11, when the leaders of God’s people failed to care for the sheep, God himself sought out the lost sheep.

(Adapted from Dr. Keener’s personal research. Used with permission from InterVarsity Press, which published similar research by Dr. Keener in The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

A brief description of the early church — Acts 2:41-47

Verse 41: Summary sections (such as 2:41-47 here) appear often in ancient literature. Luke’s estimate of conversions is a large number of people (Josephus estimated only 6000 Pharisees altogether!), though not impossible. In contrast to lower earlier estimates, recent estimates of Jerusalem’s population are often 80,000 or higher; pilgrims for Pentecost swelled the numbers higher still. Because worshipers needed to purify themselves ritually, the temple mount had a massive number of immersion pools, rendering the baptism of large numbers there plausible.

Verse 42: Ancient groups often ate together (for example, Pharisaic fellowships, cultic associations). Greek associations typically met and ate together once a month. Table fellowship created friendship and loyalty ties. Music or other entertainment, but also discussions and even lectures, were frequent at common meals in antiquity. Here the focus may be apostolic teaching and prayer.

Verses 43-45: Luke’s description here may adapt the language used by some philosophers for the ideal community (a utopia); others also compare the ancient ideal of “friends” sharing things in common. Qumran sectarians surrendered all possessions to their community and withdrew into the wilderness from the larger society. While Qumran does show the extent to which some groups could go, we should not ignore differences as well. Thus there is no withdrawal here, and believers apparently sell property simply when needs arise (4:34-35), continuing to use their homes (2:46). Christians’ sacrificial lifestyle continued in the second century, mocked by rich pagans until the church later absorbed society’s values.

Verses 46-47: People often congregated under the colonnades of temples, which were normally considered public places. Jerusalem’s temple also hosted public prayer during morning and evening offerings (see comment on 3:1). Greek associations (trade guilds, etc.) often met just once a month.

 

Posted on

Jesus Christ is superior to angels — Hebrews 1

Christ’s superiority to the angels (1:1-14) also made him greater than the law, believed to have been mediated through angels (2:2-3). Some second-century Jewish followers of Jesus, eager to affirm Jesus as greater than merely human but reluctant to consider him divine, viewed him as an angel; if any of this work’s audience held this view, the author could respond to such ideas as well.

Verses 1-2: The most stylish Greek authors often sought to imitate older prose models, and employ Attic (classical Athenian) language. Hebrews 1:1-2 includes some of the most sophisticated Greek in the New Testament. The writer may imitate elements of the widely-circulated prologue of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). The writer uses the rhetorical device called alliteration: verse 1 includes five words (out of 12) beginning with the letter “p.”

Developing Old Testament ideas (for example, Proverbs 8:30), many Jews believed that God created everything through his Wisdom, the closest category Judaism offered to something divine in character yet distinct from the Father. The Old Testament used “last days” for the time of the end (for example, Isaiah 2:2; Hosea 3:5; Micah 4:1); Christ has now inaugurated these days.

Verse 3:  Hellenistic Jewish teachers viewed Wisdom as God’s exact image, the prototypical stamp by which he imprinted the seal of his image on all creation (just as an image was stamped on coins). Enthronement at the king’s right hand (the highest honor) alludes to Psalm 110:1, which the author will quote explicitly in Hebrews 1:13. “Purification of sins” refers to priestly activity, thus implicitly alluding to Psalm 110:4, which will feature heavily later in Hebrews.

Verse 4: In contrast to Christian and many more mainstream Jewish opinions, some  Diaspora Jewish thinkers believed that angels aided in creation. Some Jews also believed they aided in intercession. None is comparable, however, to Jesus’ role.

Verse 5: Angels could be “sons of God” (for example, Job 1:6), but not in the distinctive sense here (THE Son). The  Dead Sea Scrolls already linked Psalm 2:7 and 2 Samuel 7:14 in speculations about the coming  Messiah. Such an association was natural in Jewish midrash, which frequently linked texts on the basis of a common key term (here, “Son”). In its original setting, Psalm 2 celebrated the promise to David’s line in 2 Samuel 7, its “begetting” applying to the new king’s coronation (or in Jesus’ case, his exaltation to the Father’s right hand; cf. Acts 13:33).  Diaspora Jews sometimes introduced biblical quotations with rhetorical questions; the writer repeats this question at 1:13, using “inclusio,” an ancient framing device that brackets his biblical support in 1:5-13.

Verse 6: The “firstborn” had the greatest inheritance rights of any son (Deuteronomy 21:17); this was the title of the Davidic king in Psalm 89:26-27. The author now cites from Deut 32, a passage that  Diaspora Jews used in worship alongside Psalms (and that was often cited in the New Testament). The quotation is from a part of Deuteronomy 32 in the  Septuagint that does not appear in our current Hebrew text (but which probably reflects a Hebrew original, since it appears in the version found in the  Dead Sea Scrolls.

Verse 7: Psalm 104:4 could simply claim that God uses winds and fire as his messengers, but by this period most Jewish writers interpreted it to mean that angels were made of fire. Angels are created and subordinate, in contrast to the exalted Son (Hebrews 1:8-13).

Verses 8-9: Although Psalm 45 may originally refer to a royal wedding celebration, part of it appears to address God directly (especially in the Greek version used here). Since Psalm 45:6 (Hebrews 1:8) addresses God the king, the writer can assume that Psalm 45:7 (Hebrews 1:9) continues to address him, while also distinguishing him from the God who anointed him. Thus the writer can affirm Jesus’ deity while distinguishing him from the Father.

Verses 10-12: Ancient writers sometimes separated quotations merely with “and” (or, “and he said”). Because interpreters often linked texts based on a common key word (see comment on 1:5), God’s throne being “forever” in Hebrews 1:8 may provide the link for God’s eternality in Psalm 102:25-27, cited in Hebrews 1:10-12.

Verse 13: Because interpreters could link texts based on a common key term or concept, and the author has spoken of God’s eternal “throne” in 1:8, citing Psalm 110:1 here (regarding seating at God’s right hand; already alluded to Heb 1:3) is natural.

Verse 14: The writer proved that the angels were ministering spirits in 1:7; they serve not only the greatest heir (1:4) but also those inheriting salvation (1:14), fitting the common Jewish notion of guardian angels watching over the righteous.

 

Posted on

Are miracles real?

Craig recently wrote and article on miracles for the online publication The Huffington Post.

In the introduction of this piece, entitled “Are Miracles Real?”, Craig writes:

“Many people today are familiar with miracle stories in the Bible — the parting of a sea, water turned to wine, and, most frequently in the New Testament, healings, even of blindness, leprosy, and the reversal of recent death.

“Yet it is not just people in the first century who have believed in miracles. Various polls peg U.S. belief in miracles at roughly 80 percent. One survey suggested that 73 percent of U.S. physicians believe in miracles, and 55 percent claim to have personally witnessed treatment results they consider miraculous.”

Read the entire article by clicking here.

 

Posted on

The prodigal son — Luke 15

15:11-12.   To  ask  one’s  father for one’s  share of  the  inheritance early was unheard of in antiquity; in effect, one would  thereby say, “Father, I wish you were already dead.” Such a statement would not go over  ell even to­day,  and in a society  stressing  obedience to one’s father it  would be a serious act of rebellion (Deut  21:18-21) for which  the father could have beaten him or  worse.

That  the  father grants the  request  means that most of the hearers will not identify with the father  in this parable;  from the  start, they would think of him as stupidly lax to pamper such an immoral son.

The eldest son always received a double portion (Deut   21:17);  in this case, he would have received two­ thirds of the inheritance and the younger brother one-third.

15:13.  Jewish  law did permit a father to determine which assets (especially land) would go to which sons before he died, but they could take possession only on the father’s death: the father was manager and received the land’s profits until then. Thus this son could know what  would be his but could not legally sell his assets; he does it anyway.

Many Palestinian Jews migrated, seeking fortune in less economically pressed areas. The younger son is presumably no older than 18 (he was unmarried) and had an older brother; he would thus have had little experience in managing finances. Moralists considered squandering very evil.

15:14.    Famine was a common devastating  feature of the ancient economy. (People often viewed famines as divine judgments, but because  Jesus’ story does not address the famine area as a whole,  it does not apply this perspective to the story line.)

15:15.    At this point,  Jesus’ Jewish hearers are ready for the story to end (like a similar second-century Jewish story): the son gets what  he deserves­- he is reduced to the horrendous level of feeding the most unclean of animals. The son is cut off at this point from the Jewish community and any financial charity  it would otherwise offer  him.

15:16. Some commentators have suggested that  the “pods” here are the kind of carob pods that Israel would eat only  in  famine, which  some teachers said drove Israel to repentance. Others argue that these are prickly, wild pods that only swine’s snouts could reach.  Neither pod was considered appetizing, and given pigs’ proverbially unclean eating  habits, the thought of eating  pigs’ food would  disgust  Jesus’ hearers. That the young  man is jealous of pigs’ fare also suggests that he is not receiving fair wages (cf. 15:17).

15:17.    “Hired  men” could be either slaves rented for hire or free servants working for pay; either one  suggests that  his father is well-to-do.

15:18-19. Jewish people often used “heaven” as a respectful way of saying “God.” The son here  returns simply out of  hunger and  the belief that his father may feed  him as a servant, not because he is genuinely sorry that he disgraced his father. Given the magnitude of his sin and the squandering of one-third of his father’s life’s earnings, Jewish hearers might  regard his return as an act of  incredible presumption rather than humility.

15:20.    It was a breach of an elderly Jewish man’s dignity to run, though familial love could take priority over dignity after a long  absence. Given the normal garb, the father would have to pull up his skirt  to run. Kissing was appropriate for family members or intimate friends.

15:21-22.  The best robe in the house would  belong to the father himself. The ring would probably be a family signet  ring- a symbol of reinstatement to sonship in a well-to-do house. Slaves did not  normally wear sandals,  though they carried and tied a master’s sandals. The father is saying, “No, I won’t receive you back as a servant. I’ll receive you only as a son.”

15:23.    The  calf would be enough to feed the whole  village; this would be a big party! Aristocratic families often invited  the whole town to  a banquet when a son attained adulthood (about thirteen years old) or a child married.

15:24. Ancient writers sometimes bracketed off a section of their work by repeating a particular line; this bracketing off is called an inclusio. So far this parable has followed the course of the two that preceded it (15:3-10),  but 15:24-32 are bracketed off to address the climactic issue: the elder brother represents Jesus’ religious  accusers (15:2).

15:25-28.  Dancing was used in both religious and nonreligious celebrations. Elder brothers were to reconcile differences between fathers and younger brothers, but here the elder brother, returning at the end of  a long  day’s work, refuses even to enter the house. This is also a grievous insult  to the father’s dignity  and could have warranted a beating (cf. 15:12).

15:29-30.   Failing to greet one’s father with a title  (e.g., “Father, “Sir”;  contrast  even 15:12) was a grievous insult to the father’s dignity.  The elder brother here is a transparent metaphor for  the Pharisees, and the younger brother for  the sinners with whom Jesus was eating  (15:1-2).

15:31-32.  Religious Judaism in this period considered prostitution sinful; both Jewish and non-Jewish sources considered squandering property, especially someone else’s (16:1), sinful. Because the inheritance had been divided, the elder brother was already assured  of his share, effective on the father’s death  (15:12);  he had nothing to lose by his brother’s return. The  final response of the elder  brother is never stated, providing the  Pharisees with the  opportunity to repent if they are willing.

(Adapted from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

Hate the sin but love the sinner — Revelation 2

In Revelation chapter 2, positive models provided by the Ephesian church include testing of prophets. As relativism increases in our culture, discernment and backbone to stand against error become both increasingly unpopular and increasingly vital.  The current postmodern culture of the universities encourages the sharing of diverse beliefs (welcoming Christians in some new ways and providing opportunities previously unavailable to us). But it also forbids us to try to convert  anyone as if  we have absolute truth. We want people to understand  the gospel, but we also seek for them  to embrace  it. Even many Christians, however, are growing uncomfortable with the idea of absolute truth.

If there were in John’s day self-styled “apostles” (2:2) and prophets (2:20), preaching falsely called “deep secrets” (2:24), their number does not seem to have declined  in our own, and the need for vigilance against infiltration by false teachers has not decreased. Thus, for example, a few charismatics have closed ranks against noncharismatic critics of excesses in Word-of-Faith circles, rather than carefully examining the challenges to see which are cogent. Yet the biblical citations for some of these teachings are out of context, and some of the teachings contradict both Scripture and historic charismatic faith.

As a prophet  and an apostle, John  surely was not against  prophets or apostles in general;  but he demanded discernment in his day and would demand it no less in ours. If the Nicolaitans (2:6) supported the popular cultural values of sexual and/or religious compromise,  they also serve as a warning to us to beware  of modern purveyors of what people simply want to hear. Indeed, in talking with some members of churches that preach biblical holiness I have been struck by the number of people who embrace what their pastor says on matters that comfort them but prefer other, more worldly sources for instruction on morality.

Yet part of discernment involves knowing what we must discern, and the tragedy of the Ephesian church’s failure on this count is a tragedy of human nature that recurs through history and in our own time. The same church that rightly “hated” the works of the Nicolaitans  (2:6) wrongly abandoned their earlier commitment to “love” (2:4); like many Christians today, they may have neglected the adage that we should “hate the sin but love the sinner.”

Today,  in fact, our hatred of what we disapprove has sometimes carried beyond sin and those who commit it. Not all doctrines are at the heart of the gospel, not all errors are properly labeled heresy, and not all disagreements are worth  fighting about.

Yet despite important, notable exceptions, many of the churches most firmly committed  to the truth of the gospel are also those churches that have drawn boundaries too tightly on secondary issues. Countless times we have witnessed committed Christians marginalized for their views on gender roles, their different cultural or political perspectives, or for other reasons. In many of these cases those we have marginalized have naturally found circles where they were more accepted- even though many of those circles proved lax on matters that were close to their hearts.

In some of those  cases I  have also watched these  wounded Christians react against the rejection they experienced in their more traditional background in ways that discarded the proverbial baby with the bath water. For example, a professor marginalized by her evangelical campus ministry years ago because she held different views on gender roles now reportedly multiplies her hostility toward the Bible among her students.

Often we have marginalized people by careless thinking. For example, in our biblically correct opposition to divorce we have sometimes condemned faithful spouses abandoned and divorced against their will (about as sensible as condemning a rape victim because we oppose rape).  When  they  then leave our church,  we sometimes  feel confirmed  in our suspicion  that  they must have been unspiritual to begin with!

Even when  we are dealing  with clear cases of sin and error, does not Scripture call us to offer correction  with love and grace (Luke 15:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:24-26)?  Meanwhile, as J. I. Packer rightly notes, many of us Western evangelicals “can smell unsound  doctrine  a mile away,” and yet the fruit of personal experience of God often proves rare among us.

A church  where  love ceases can no longer  function  properly  as a local expression of Christ’s many-membered body. This is one of the offenses for which  a lampstand can  be moved  from its place  (2:5),  through which  a church can ultimately cease to exist as a church. Some churches die from lack of outreach,  lack of planning for the rising generation, or lack of courtesy to visitors; some churches,  like the church  in Ephesus, may risk simply killing themselves off by how they treat others.

(Adapted from The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation, published by Zondervan in 2000. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

I will remove your lampstand from its place — Revelation 2:6

That  the letters to the seven churches of Revelation often betray characteristics of the cities in which these churches flourished reminds us how easily churches  can reflect the values of their culture if we do not remain vigilant against those values. (This is especially true of the less persecuted churches.)

The two cities that are now completely uninhabited belong to two of the churches most severely rebuked (Sardis and Laodicea); the two cities that held out longest before the Turkish conquest are the only two churches fully praised (Smyrna and Philadelphia); and the city of Eph­esus was later literally moved to a site about three kilometers from where it was in John’s day, just as the church was threatened with removal from its place (2:5)

Such parallels may be coincidence, but they might also illustrate a pat­tern in history: The church, no matter how powerless in a given society, is a guardian of its culture. Just as the presence of the righteous in Sodom was the only factor that could have restrained judgment (Gen. 18:20-32), the fate of a culture may depend ultimately on the behavior of the believers in that culture.

Given the high degree of assimilation of North American Christians to our culture’s values- more time spent on entertainment than on witness, more money spent on our comfort than on human need- the prognosis for the society as a whole is not good.

When pagans charged that Rome fell because of its conversion to Christianity, Augustine responded that it fell rather because its sins were piled as high as heaven and because the commitment of most of its Christian popu­lation remained too shallow to restrain God’s wrath. Naturally we recognize that not all suffering reflects judgment; but some does, especially on the societal level. Is Western Christianity genuinely different enough from our cultures to delay God’s judgment on our societies?

(Adapted from The NIV Application Commentary: Revelation, published by Zondervan. Buy the book here.)

 

Posted on

The rich man and Lazarus — Luke 16:19-31

This story resembles a rabbinic story of uncertain date, except that there the rich man did a good deed and made it into the world  to come; here he allows starvation while he lives in luxury, and thus  inherits hell. Some details about the afterlife here are standard features of Jewish tradition; a few are simply necessary to make the story line work (acceptable practice in the telling of parables).

16:19.   Purple was an especially expensive form of apparel  (cf. comment on Acts 16:14); the lifestyle Jesus describes here is one of ostentatious luxury.  Although this man may have become rich by immoral means (as people often  did), the only crime Jesus attributes to him is that he let Lazarus starve to death when he could have prevented it.

16:20.   Some Jewish parables (including the rabbinic one mentioned at the beginning of this section) named a character or two.

16:21.   The crumbs here may be regular crumbs or the pieces of bread used to sop up the table. Had Lazarus gotten to eat them, these  leftovers would  still have been insufficient to sustain him. The dogs here appear to be the  usual kind  Palestinian Jews  knew:  scavengers, viewed as if they were rats or other unhealthy creatures (also in the Old  Testament, e.g.,  1 Kings  14:11; 16:4; 21:24; 22:38). They were unclean, and their  tongues would  have  stung his sores.

16:22-23.  Jewish lore often speaks of the righteous being carried away by angels; Jesus spares his hearers the traditional corresponding image of the wicked being carried  away  by demons. Every person, no matter how poor, was to receive a burial, and not  to be buried was seen as  terrible   (e.g., 1 Kings 14:13).  But Lazarus, having neither rel­atives nor charitable patron,  did not receive one,  whereas the rich man would have received great eulogies. True Israelites and especially martyrs were expected to share with Abraham in the world to come. The  most  hon­ored seat in a banquet would be nearest the  host,  reclining  in such a way that one’s head was near  his bosom.

16:24-26.  Jewish literature often  portrayed  hell as involving  burning. The formerly rich man hopes for mercy be­cause he is a descendant of Abraham (see comment on 3:8),  but the judgment here is based on a future inver­sion of status. Jewish people expected an inversion of status, where the oppressed righteous (especially Israel) would be exalted above the oppressing wicked  (especially the Gentiles), and also believed that charitable persons would be greatly rewarded in the world to come.  But this parable specifies only economic inversion, and its starkness would have been as offensive to most first-century hearers of means as it would be to most middle-class Western Christians today if they  heard it in its original  force.

16:27-31.  If those who claimed to believe the Bible failed to live accordingly, even a resurrection (Jesus points ahead to his own) would not persuade them. Jewish  literature also emphasized the moral responsibility of all people to obey whatever measure of light they already had.

(Adapted from The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Buy the book here.)