... people there. Sacrifices were offered for both priest and people, and the blood was taken into the most holy place. Only on Yom Kippur could this room be entered, and only by the high priest, who sprinkled blood on the cover of the ark of the covenant. Leaving that room, he also sprinkled blood in the holy place (16:14–17) and then on the bronze altar in the courtyard. Yom Kippur was marked by another ritual that symbolized the removal of Israel’s sins, this one involving two goats. One goat, chosen by ...
... off the trees. Would it be good for us to eat all that candy? That's right, it wouldn't. Too much chocolate candy could hurt our health. There are many things in life like that, of course. They tempt us. They appeal to us, but we really ought to leave them alone or at least go easy on them, because they are not good for us. At first, our parents try to help us say "no" to temptation, but eventually it will be up to us to choose those things that build us up and to ...
... of interest to historians, but apparently not to the Gospel writer. Looking back on the association two chapters later, John’s disciples refer to Jesus vaguely as “that man who was with you on the other side of the Jordan” (3:26), and the author is content to leave the matter there. Additional Notes 1:23 John replied in the words of … Only in this Gospel does the quotation of Isa. 40:3 appear on the lips of John the Baptist himself. In the other Gospels it is part of the comment of the Gospel writer ...
... . Why? The narrator apparently does not want the call of Simon Peter (verses 40–42) to detract from the more extended account of the call of Nathanael, which is where his chief interest lies. The call of Simon is part of his tradition and he has no desire to leave it out, but strictly speaking it has no day of its own assigned to it in the sixday sequence. It is simply an appendix to Day Three, included for the sake of completeness and to prepare for the events of Day Four. Andrew finds Simon and says, We ...
... (v. 45), even though he is suspicious of the Galileans’ motives (v. 48). But if it refers to Judea or Jerusalem, why was the saying not quoted earlier, when Jesus “would not entrust himself” to people in Jerusalem (2:24) or when he decided to leave Judea (4:3)? Curiously, it is quoted in connection with his departure from Samaria after a two-day visit. Is Samaria then Jesus’ patris? Obviously not. Even though his enemies will later denounce him as a Samaritan (8:48), the clear assumption of his ...
... are virtually equated (Mark 2:5–11), Jesus warns the man to stop sinning or something worse may happen to you (v. 14b; cf. Jesus’ warning to the adulterous woman in 8:11, at the end of a passage inserted into John’s Gospel by later copyists: “Go now and leave your life of sin”). The question of whether the man’s sickness was a punishment for his sins is not addressed directly in this story, as it is in the subsequent account of the healing of the man born blind (cf. 9:1–3), nor are the two ...
... realistically and with humor. Unlike the sick man of chapter 5, he has personality, a ready wit, and strong convictions. Unlike Nicodemus, he leaves no doubt about what he thinks of Jesus. He is surely one of the most memorable characters in all of the Gospels. ... and the “Nazarenes,” or Christians; the point was that Jewish Christians could not curse themselves and therefore would have to leave). But expulsion, whether potential or actual, is so integrally a part of the story of the man born blind (cf. v ...
... the Sabbath, its owner will pull it out (Matt. 12:11). If a shepherd loses track of even one out of a hundred sheep, he will leave the rest to fend for themselves and go out looking for it (Luke 15:4). If not everyday actions, these are at least normal responses to ... go as their needs dictate. The shepherd provides them with both protection and pasture. It is not a question of entering and leaving the realm of salvation. 10:10 That they may have life, and have it to the full: The NIV correctly indicates that ...
... 31–35, so it is possible to imagine a stage when the discourse extended to 14:31 but no further. There is a smooth transition from that verse’s summons to “leave” to the statement in 18:1 that Jesus “left with his disciples and crossed the Kidron Valley.” At the end of chapter 14, the reader expects the group to leave and the discourse to end. Instead, the discourse continues, as Jesus seems to make a new beginning. In a manner reminiscent of the public ministry, he combines a particularly vivid ...
... they crucified him”), some have argued that John’s Gospel was following the Roman time reckoning from midnight, so that “the sixth hour” was 6:00 a.m. This crowds a great deal of action between “early morning” (18:28) and 6:00 a.m. while leaving the three hours between 6:00 and 9:00 a.m. unaccounted for. It also raises the question of why John would fix the time of Jesus’ presentation as king so carefully and the time of his crucifixion not at all. Whatever the resolution of the chronologies ...
... as authority for this assurance, as in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 with regard to the resurrection or in 1 Corinthians 15:51 with regard to the bestowal of immortality on believers who are still alive; but he affirms his hope with a positiveness (“we know … we have …”) that leaves no room for doubt. It is the same hope that finds expression here. One who enjoys the presence of Christ in this life is not to be deprived of it when this life ends, for Christ is alive on the other side of death and because he ...
... stay longer with Paul, to take care of his needs as their representative. Paul makes it plain that he is responsible for sending Epaphroditus back earlier than they expected. I think it is necessary, he says, and goes on to say why. 2:26 Some time after leaving Philippi, Epaphroditus had fallen ill. His illness raises questions to which no certain answers can be given. Did he fall ill on his way to Paul, or after he had reached the place where Paul was? The usual view is that it was after his arrival, but ...
... us, that is, the Elder and his followers, received a divine order which they are to obey. Some are doing this, and some are not. To leave the community and to follow another “rule” is to disobey not just the Elder, but God! First John 3:23 summarizes the Father’s command in ... e., in the believing fellowship), and in the world. The latter is the realm of the evil one (1 John 5:19). To leave the Christian community in the Elder’s day was not to establish a new denomination. It was to be lost in the ...
... main story, for it speaks about parents, and these first humans had no parents. In joining with a woman, a man will leave his parents. Some interpreters have taken this extraordinary wording as assuming a matriarchal order, but the context does not sustain this view ... ’s parents might easily have thought that they had authority over their son despite the marriage. Therefore the son must leave his parents by breaking the authority line to them and honor his wife as his true counterpart, the central person ...
... 2). He pointed out that this new promise possessed little value if he could not pass on the reward to his own seed. Abram was voicing his deep disappointment at God for not having fulfilled the promise of an heir even though he had obeyed God in leaving his home at Haran. Abram focused his complaint by pointing out that his only heir was Eliezer of Damascus. This statement appears to reflect an ancient custom whereby a childless couple adopted a son in order to have someone to care for them in their old age ...
... grounds that he had not lied, because Sarah was his sister through a common father. Since the intent of a statement bears greater moral weight than its factual accuracy, Abraham’s self-defense was very weak. Finally, Abraham made an amazing confession, saying that on leaving Haran the two of them had made a pact that wherever they went Sarah could show her love for him by identifying him as her brother. With this disclosure he betrayed the depth of his apprehension about the safety of Sarah and himself on ...
... third command defined the crux of the test. God ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering. This order sealed Isaac’s fate, for a burnt offering was consumed by fire (Lev. 1). Because God addressed Abraham as he had when he commanded him to leave Haran (12:1–3), Abraham quickly grasped the decisiveness in God’s command. On this occasion there was no room for debating with God. 22:3 Early the next morning Abraham prepared to do as God had commanded. The heaviness of Abraham’s heart at God ...
... children and for the ewes and cows that were nursing their young. Jacob, however, was headed for Canaan, not Seir. Possibly he was apprehensive that if they traveled together friction might arise between the two groups. Jacob therefore suggested that Esau go on his way, leaving him to travel at his own pace. Eventually he would meet him in Seir. Since there is no evidence that he ever planned to go to Seir, this comment is puzzling. Many scholars interpret it as another example of Jacob’s use of deception ...
... . root y-sh-b might be “stay.” This time Jacob was free to remain there as long as he wanted, in contrast to his first visit when he was fleeing from Esau (Sarna, Genesis, p. 234). These orders from God parallel those his mother gave him before leaving Canaan (27:43; Wenham, Genesis 16–50, p. 323). 35:6 The use of the name Luz is surprising since the reader is already aware of Bethel’s former name (28:19). Its usage here is a strong indication that this account circulated independently before it was ...
... to God as the God of the fathers (26:24; 28:13). Israel set out for Egypt, traveling from Hebron by way of Beersheba, where both Abraham and Isaac had lived for a time. This site marked the southern boundary of the promised land (2 Sam. 24:2). Before leaving the land of promise, Israel offered sacrifices to the God of his father Isaac (26:23–24; 28:13). God honored him by speaking to him in a vision, affectionately calling his name twice (22:11; Exod. 3:4; 1 Sam. 3:10). Identifying himself as the God of ...
... divine reality. Such a claim would certainly not be unique among the religions and philosophies of humankind. Nor is the eschatological hope of Zechariah merely that some day all human beings will profess monotheism of some sort per se. A philosophical monotheism that leaves the divine reality unnamed and characterless is alien (both unknown and hostile) to the OT faith. It is vital to see that, in OT terms, it is Yahweh who defines what monotheism means, not a concept of monotheism that defines how Yahweh ...
... time for repentance (e.g., 2 Pet. 3:9 and context). Verse 10, therefore, has to be understood in terms of the unquestionably true general principle that God’s judgment awaits the wicked. But it is not instant. And it is not automatic, inasmuch as God leaves room for repentance—“space for grace,” as it has been called. In a similar way, verses 12–15 have to be taken as true in principle: God rejoices to bless those who are obedient and loyal to God’s covenant, and their lives are enriched in ...
... where a killer (intentional or accidental) is known to the community. But if the killer is not known, it is not enough just to “leave the case open.” Bloodshed defiles the land (the land whose special character is emphasized in verse 1 and repeated in verse 23), and brings ... is over, (d) If the man finally changes his mind and will not undertake marital responsibility toward her, she is to leave as a free woman. He can take no further advantage over her by selling her as a slave. Thus, the physical and ...
... to be the implication of the mention of Kidron in 2:37, which Shimei would naturally cross if on his way home. Whether he interpreted Solomon’s instructions to mean that he must never under any circumstances leave Jerusalem is not clear. All we are told is that after three years of perfect compliance (v. 39) Shimei leaves Jerusalem for a while to retrieve some slaves from Gath. He does not, in fact, cross the Kidron valley on his way—the silence of the text on this point (v. 40) is deafening. He is ...
... the tribe of Naphtali in the far north of the country, near the Phoenician coast. The detail may well have been provided to reassure us that Hiram was not simply a Gentile with no Israelite roots. The fact that his mother was a widow, indeed, leaves open the possibility that he was a child of her first marriage, and therefore completely Israelite (cf. Ezra 4 for similar sensitivity to the question of Gentile involvement in temple building). Be that as it may, he is certainly described in a way that reminds ...