... like that. Wolfe began to think about that observation. His brother was right. However reluctant we might be to get dressed and go out on a bad night, we don't leave a brother stranded somewhere. It then occurred to Wolfe that if we are all God's children, then all God's children have a claim upon us, and we mustn't leave any of our brothers or sisters stranded anywhere. Somewhere a house has burned down, there has been a death, or a family is destitute because unemployment benefits have been exhausted ...
... in ancient times, the fig trees were a prominent and well-known feature (cf. 11:12–14), and the reference to the characteristics of this tree in the context of teaching delivered on that mountain (13:3) is very natural. There, the tree begins to show leaves only late in the spring, and the observer knows that summer is surely to come. The leafing of the fig tree is a lesson (Greek, “parable”), signifying the way the events of verses 5–23 (these things, v. 29) are to be taken by Jesus’ followers ...
... Gospel at 16:8 or whether his original ending was lost remains a matter of scholarly disagreement and research. In the absence of conclusive evidence or argument, the reader is advised to be aware of the question and to recognize that at 16:8 we leave the certain text of Mark and enter into uncertainty about what may have come next, if anything. (We shall discuss the various endings in the manuscript tradition in the next section.) The difficulties about the nature of what might have followed 16:8 should ...
... in this section. 3:21–22 Luke’s statement that Jesus was the last to be baptized (v. 21) is strategic. By mentioning John’s imprisonment so early in the narrative, an event which Mark (6:17–18) and Matthew (14:3–4) report much later, and by leaving the impression that Jesus is the last to be baptized, Luke succeeds in making a clean break between the end of John’s ministry and the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. The time of the Law and the Prophets is over; now the kingdom of God (which in Luke ...
... man had been driven into the “wilderness” (and thus out of town) and had met Jesus near the “shore.” It is quite possible that this “region” was understood to extend to the very edge of the Gennesaret Lake. 8:37 Talbert (p. 98) thinks that the people wanted Jesus to leave because of the (economic) loss of the herd. That is unlikely, and, in any case, Luke himself adds that the people asked Jesus to ...
... ” (25:19–23), but he condemns the “wicked, lazy slave” (25:26) for squandering his opportunity, takes away his talent (25:28) and consigns him to “outer darkness” (25:30). In the Lucan version a man of noble birth leaves in anticipation of being appointed king. Before leaving, he entrusted ten of his servants with ten minas. While he is gone some of his subjects send a delegation trying to prevent the nobleman from ruling as king. Having returned as king he summoned his servants to determine ...
... that the Jews themselves crucified Jesus. J. T. Sanders (p. 226) thinks so. This could be, but Luke does mention the centurion later in v. 47. Surely this is supposed to be a Roman centurion (and not a Jewish one). Sanders (p. 228) agrees. Because Luke leaves this Roman at the site of the crucifixion, one could argue that Luke has all along understood that the Romans crucified Jesus, and he no doubt assumed that his readers would know this. Who else had the authority to crucify people in the Roman Empire? I ...
... it clean, put it in order, … and left it empty. The expelled demon searched for seven demons more wretched than itself, and they all returned to seize the house in fury (Matt. 12:43–45). The owner’s mistake was not in ridding the premises of the demon, but in leaving it unoccupied. Unless the vacuum left by sin is filled with righteousness, the heart is vulnerable for a more violent takeover. The point is obvious. The human experience does not offer us a state of limbo. Deliverance from evil does not ...
... The marriage analogy must be understood in light of what Paul said in chapter 6. Freedom from the law does not leave one in a neutral, noncommitted state. One cannot remain “unmarried.” Either one transfers allegiance to Christ or one falls back under ... to the law.” Paul again contrasts the exclusive alternatives of sin and law to Christ and the Spirit. To drive the nail home he leaves the analogy of marriage and returns to that of slavery, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the ...
... that the apostles be able to derive their living from the work they did as ministers. He moves beyond a mere human point of view, as he documents his understanding by reference to the Law. Having laid out a logical, seemingly persuasive case, Paul does not leave the matter at that level; rather, he underwrites his reasoning with reference to the law, which was understood to be a definitive statement of the will and purposes of God. 9:9–11 The mention of the law leads to a citation of Deuteronomy 25:4 ...
... spirits trapped in material bodies. The following commentary pursues this line of interpretation: for some of the Corinthians, there is no need of a resurrection of the dead, for the dead live as being truly freed spirits. The dead have superseded mundane physicality by leaving their dead bodies behind. There is no need for a resurrection of the dead; such a notion is abhorrent, since the body has been left behind in death—and that for the better. Paul opposes this line of dualistic thinking. Note the odd ...
... enemies Israel had. Still, before Agag’s defeat, they did cause problems. Accordingly, here the point of the blessing in Balaam’s mouth is that Israel will be exalted. The progress of the people up to this point supports the prophet’s words. Since leaving Egypt, the people have gained strength and victories. They are like a lion that can pounce upon prey. The conclusion of the oracle is reminiscent of Genesis 12:3, expressing the hope that those who bless Israel will be blessed, and those who curse ...
... following the death, the accused flees to the city of refuge for protection but then returns home for a hearing. If the hearing judges the killing unintentional, the killer returns to the city of refuge to stay until the death of the high priest. Should the person leave the city of refuge at any time, the avenger of blood may kill the accused. If the accused stays in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest, then the person is free to return home. Central to the significance of this procedure ...
... The normal methods of drawing lots or of predicting the future gave a yes/no answer or distinguished between two alternatives, as between Saul and Jonathan in v. 42. It is not known what method might have been used to request more complex information or could leave a situation in which no answer was provided, as in v. 37. 14:45 If an animal was sacrificed as a ransom for Jonathan, that is not specified. It is feasible that Saul had become jealous of Jonathan, suspecting that Jonathan might intend to mount a ...
... it may be that most of them had also fallen afoul of Saul’s intemperate nature, but they formed into a disciplined force. David, perhaps winning the support of the king of Moab by presenting himself as an opponent of the Israelite king, was able to leave his parents in safe custody. He remained for a while at a fortified base until a prophetic instruction sent him into Judean territory. 22:6–10 Saul reacted predictably when he learned that David had surfaced and that a group had gathered around him. He ...
... to the destruction of the land. We are again given a hint of Saul’s potential, the way in which he could have reigned if he had not been diverted from following God’s path. The two men separate before they have met. David retreats to En Gedi leaving Saul to deal with the latest incursion of the Philistines. David’s retreat may be a safety measure, since hiding places and water could easily be found in the caves around En Gedi in the Dead Sea region, but it could also indicate a respect for Saul’s ...
... is, put outside of covenant fellowship with God and his people. They deserve the punishment that they have in effect given to David, to be driven out of Israel. It is becoming clear to David, although it is not made explicit until 27:1, that his only option is to leave his native soil. He is no more harmful to Saul than a flea, so why should the king of Israel come after David as if on a game-bird hunting expedition? 26:21–25 Saul, as he did on the earlier occasion (24:17), responds to the fact that David ...
... a child, by a similar raiding party heading south rather than north. His being left to fend for himself when he became ill does not necessarily reflect cruelty on his master’s part. There was no room in a raiding party for a sickly slave; to leave him was an alternative to his being summarily killed, and this way he had a chance. The Egyptian said that he had come from an Amalekite party that had carried out raids against Israelites and Philistines and that had been responsible for the burning of Ziklag ...
... facing their friends and family until the beards had regrown. Jericho would have been the first stopping place within recognized Israelite territory. Such embassies would travel lightly, probably with no easily obtained change of clothes. Garments cut off at the buttocks would thus leave the soldiers exposed as they moved away through the crowds outside the new king’s palace. It was an insult that no Eastern soldier could tolerate. 10:6 In the accounts found here, in ch. 8, and in 1 Chron. 19, there are ...
... easiest way to solve David’s problem was for Uriah to be made to think that the child that had been conceived was his. So Uriah was recalled from active service, used by Joab to send dispatches to David, and then encouraged by David to take a few days leave, to go home and spend time with his wife. It adds to the sad irony of the text that David’s stratagem did not work because of Uriah’s transparent integrity. His refusal to go home may have been because he had heard rumors about David and Bathsheba ...
... himself as king, would not be able to allow David, or any of those who had been close to him, to live. In Jerusalem they were sitting targets, so David took immediate action and instituted a strategic withdrawal. Most of the royal household accompanied him, leaving only a small group to look after the property. However, Absalom had not won all hearts. It seems as if most of the army remained loyal to David. Certainly the household guard and the crack troops of mighty men with the regiments of non-Israelite ...
... with David since his days fleeing from Saul (1 Sam. 22:5). He appears to have had a parallel ministry to that of Nathan. Both of them are spoken of as record keepers as well as prophets (1 Chron. 29:29). 24:14 The text as it stands leaves famine and plague as equal options, although the LXX adds “and David chose the plague.” Perhaps famine would have made the nation dependent on others, in this case the grain merchants. 24:16–17 It is not clear whether God decided that the plague should be stopped at ...
... and tested in the middle, and reaffirmed at the end of chapter 1. Lest the reader assume the narrative is complete and the question decided, the initial phrase in 1:22, “in all this,” stops just short of completely vindicating Job and leaves the door open for further development of the dominant theme: Is it possible to “fear God for nothing”? The final phrase of the chapter, “charging God with wrongdoing,” is obscure on account of the uncertain word tiplah, translated “wrongdoing.” Most ...
... If the teeth of the great lions are broken, all their powerful roaring and growling (probably an allusion to the angry words of Job’s initial monologue) is of no avail. Unable to secure and hold their prey without the use of their fangs, they perish and leave their cubs scattered and defenseless. Dream a Little Dream 4:12–16 Chapter 4 concludes with an extended account of a dream, which is resonant of dreams found in the prophetic and apocalyptic literature (see, e.g., Dan. 2:19, 45; 7:2, 7, 13; Zech. 1 ...
... earlier to question the sincerity of Job’s service to God: “Does Job fear God for nothing [khinnam]?” (1:9). Ironically, as Job’s faithful service to God returns no profit, so God’s attack on Job is equally profitless. The intensity of the attack would leave Job unable to respond. Face to face with God, Job says he would be unable to regain my breath—an expectation that proves true when God finally comes on the scene in chapters 38–42 (see esp. 40:3–5). In a sense, then, the delay of ...