... fasting that Saul imposed upon them. Jonathan, who was not with the army when Saul’s restrictions were imposed, enjoys what he probably saw as God-given refreshment. When he is informed of Saul’s oath he feels no fear or guilt—he simply does not understand how his father could have been so misguided. Without the physical restrictions caused by the oath, they might have been able to drive the Philistines even farther back. God would have been able to do more for them, not less. 14:31–35 Before there ...
... his own honor is recorded without comment, but at a point when the honor of God had been forgotten, Saul was concerned about his own status. So far, Saul has been presented as seeking to serve God but being wrong through limitations in his theological understanding. Now his concern was to maintain his own reputation before the people. It may be that as the defeat of the Amalekites would mainly benefit Judah, Saul left behind a monument to remind the Judeans that he had done good things for them. This could ...
... possibly following his sojourn there (1 Sam. 27), but in general they were as opposed to Israel as the rest of the Philistines. It is possible that Goliath suffered from a genetic defect causing giantism. Any exaggeration in the figures would be understandable given his clear difference from others. The references to other such giants in 2 Sam. 21:15–21, which mentions further genetic problems, may mean there was a significant problem in Gath. That Goliath’s forehead was penetrated so easily may further ...
... ’s guilt. However, Hertzberg may be right to see Jonadab’s intervention as the result of a guilty conscience (I and II Samuel, p. 327). Even when it is apparent that the disaster was not as major as was first supposed, David was again and understandably upset at Amnon’s death. But again he takes no action against his son, although Absalom recognized the need to flee. Sanctuary for murder was not permitted in Israel, and Absalom therefore retreated to his grandfather’s house at Geshur, on the edge of ...
... 2 Samuel and a link with 1 Kings. 24:1–3 The picture in verse 1 of God incit[ing] David because of his anger . . . against Israel is difficult to comprehend, particularly in the light of the parallel in Chronicles, where Satan incites David. Are we to understand that God causes David to take action that is against God’s will and for which David and the nation will be punished? If so, then God is to be viewed as the tempter, something that James 1:13 suggests is not possible. One way of reconciling this ...
... whose role seems to be roaming through the earth in order to test the reality of human faith in God. The Satan takes his place among the children of God and is able to act only within the restriction Yahweh places on him. 1:8 According to this understanding of Satan, the testing of Job cannot be seen as the result of a battle between the hostile will of Satan and God in which the innocent human Job is trapped and battered. Rather, it is clear that Yahweh is always in control and that the test proceeds ...
... is hidden means that one has lost the ability to know how to proceed effectively on one’s life journey (derek, “way”) to God. The “way” is not simply one’s destiny. It also describes the daily, practical application of fearing God in order to understand how to act rightly in each circumstance and so to relate rightly to God and fellow human beings. 3:24–26 Chapter 3 ends with a concluding statement of cause introduced by the Hebrew ki, “for.” In this final statement, Job once again reverts ...
... ” the sages, as if they are naïve, untutored school boys, dishonors and offends Zophar’s sense of identity. He sets out to counter Job’s criticism with an answer drawn from understanding (the accumulated perception of sages). Additional Notes 20:3 The meaning of the Heb. ruakh mibbinati (lit., “a spirit from my understanding”) is not clear here. The NIV takes it as a sign of inspiration. The Premature Death of the Wicked 20:4–5 As often in the dialogue section, Zophar couches his answer ...
... consoled him. The memory of suffering is still fresh and mourning continues, but Job now stands in the midst of a supportive family and community. It is clear from the statement over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him that the narrator understands that God is the active force behind Job’s suffering. The Satan is no opposing force acting contrary to the will of God but functions always with divine permission. The consolation of Job’s friends suggests that while they attribute his suffering to ...
... ’s impending intervention. (We need not suppose that all you who do evil are actually present to hear the speaker’s words. As dramatic poetry, the Psalms sometimes address an imaginary audience. Cf. 4:2; 62:3; 114:5.) Second, we could understand these shifts as a response to a “salvation oracle,” pronounced by a priest or liturgist between verses 7 and 8. Thus, we need not suppose that a psychological shift in the composer prompted these changes; rather, the liturgical text itself directs worshipers ...
... light of other psalms, vv. 1–21 sound like a prayer psalm, and vv. 22–26 sound like a thanksgiving psalm. The closest analogies to vv. 27–31 are the psalms of Yahweh’s kingship (Pss. 47; 93; 96–99). As separate psalms we could more readily understand these verses, but how are we to make sense of their combination? Did these sections originally belong together as a single psalm, or were they added in stages? Whether they originally formed a unit or not, they are now part of a single psalm, so how ...
... patience and not reject Yahweh because of immediate trials from the proud. In view of the earlier lament of contempt from neighbors and friends, we may wonder how this exhortation in the company of Yahweh’s devout fits in. First, it helps to understand the nature of psalmic laments. While they may sound utter and complete, they do not describe all the circumstances. Second, we may gain some insight into ancient Israelite society, which may not be too different from our own. Yahweh’s faithful were in ...
... do so by some similarities of situation and by the phrase, “to seek one’s life,” found in both Psalm 54:3 and 1 Samuel 23:15. As discussed in the Introduction, this is a very intriguing and helpful way of reading the psalm, once one understands “David” as the archetypal person of God. But as also discussed, psalms were first and foremost composed within and for a liturgical setting, not within a desert setting (1 Sam. 23:15), where prose prayers appear to have been the custom (e.g., vv. 2, 10–12 ...
... Josh. 3:11, 13). (On righteousness and justice as the foundation of his throne, cf. 89:14, which alludes to a ritual procession of the cherubim-ark.) It is understandable how the heavens proclaim Yahweh’s glory, but modern readers might be puzzled how they proclaim his righteousness. This expression is certainly problematic if we insist on understanding God’s righteousness strictly as a moral term. But if we consider the usage of the Hebrew term ṣedeq in the Psalms, we discover its moral sense derives ...
... (see also 16:21 and 20:18ff.). The Son of Man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life. Upon hearing this the disciples were greatly distressed. They could understand Jesus being put to death, but apparently they were incapable of grasping the promise of resurrection. Paradidōmi (v. 22) in this context probably means no more than “to be handed over,” although later it came to be part of the theological language of the Passion ...
... (see on Ps. 9). As noted, our psalm does echo the Song of Moses (Exod. 15), originally sung after the deliverance at the Reed Sea. 118:1–18 In light of this liturgical setting before the gates of the temple precincts, we should probably understand the psalm’s development as follows. Outside the temple a priest issues the hymnic, imperative call for the respective parties to engage in an antiphon (His love endures forever) and to give thanks (vv. 1–4). This points to a verbal “thank you” and ...
... that Jesus the Messiah would be put to death. They still shared the Jewish view that Messiah would come in triumph (the parallel in Luke 18:34 says that “they did not grasp what was said”). It was even more difficult for them to understand that following his crucifixion he would be raised to life (v. 19). There is no real difference between Matthew’s on the third day and Mark’s “after three days” (ASV; Mark 10:34). Fenton notes that this entire section follows naturally after Jesus’ statement ...
... would within a few hours be separated from his disciples until they would meet again in Galilee following the resurrection (Matt. 28:16ff.). How typical of human weakness to be unavailable when needed most! The scene in the garden has profound implications for our understanding of Jesus’ perfect humanity. Leaving the eight disciples (Judas had left the group by then) at a spot perhaps near the entrance of the garden, Jesus took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee a bit farther to be near him while he prayed ...
... to Lev. 24:16). Then they spit in his face and struck him with their fists (kolaphizō is derived from kolaphos, “knuckles/closed fist”). Although Matthew does not specifically identify those who abused Jesus in such a degrading manner, the context would lead us to understand that it was the members of the Sanhedrin who are intended by the pronoun they in verse 67. In the Marcan parallel, however, it was the guards who “took him and beat him” (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:63 says that it was “the men who ...
... :1; 82:6). The KJV translation, “and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God,” is misleading, suggesting a pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus. Such an interpretation reads the NT into the OT rather than discerning the original OT meaning. The author of Daniel clearly understands this fourth man to be an angel (3:28). God visits his people in their trials. He speaks to Job out of the whirlwind (Job 38:1) and goes to be with his people in exile (Ezek. 1; 11:16). But the difference between Job and the ...
... 2). As a result, Nebuchadnezzar promoted Daniel to the position of “chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon” (2:48 NRSV). Finally, the Jewish prophet was recognized as being endowed with a divine spirit (4:8). Given this background, it is difficult to understand why the king even bothered with the other wise men (4:6–7); one would expect him to consult Daniel first. In the context of the narrative, however, there is greater dramatic effect and more pleasure for the reader to see the incompetent ...
... , as has regrettably happened in much Christian tradition. The Gospels give us the language of heated religious conflict and show us only one side of the conflict. The true pathos of the conflict between Jesus and Pharisees is recognized only when one understands that theirs was a case of deeply religious and sincere people, not just hypocrites, who (from a Christian standpoint) were unable to recognize and submit to the new message of God’s gracious salvation apart from observance of religious law.
... in 6:7–11 may reflect his own practice, meaning that they would have carried no supplies with them and would have been constantly dependent on the hospitality of others and provision from God (cf. Matt. 10:5–15). On the other hand, the Pharisaic understanding of the Sabbath was that almost everything else was to give way to observe this command (see note). So, in the Jewish Maccabean revolt against the Syrians (168 B.C.), and in subsequent wars, many Jews refused to fight on the Sabbath, even to save ...
... point that Jesus is speaking the way God does. The encounter begins as Jesus was about to pass by them (6:48). The phrase suggests that he intended to make himself visible to the disciples to relieve their fear and to reveal his power to them. On this understanding of the phrase, Jesus’ intent is frustrated, for when they see him they become even more frightened, supposing him to be a sea demon (6:49, a ghost; see note). Even when he shows them who he is, the disciples are amazed but do not comprehend the ...
... that in ancient Judaism there was no concept that the Messiah would suffer the sort of horrible fate that Jesus describes in 8:31. Thus Peter’s response in 8:32 is in one sense fully understandable. All definitions of the nature and function of Messiah must be subsumed to the reality that God’s Christ, Jesus, was obedient, undergoing bitter suffering and death in accordance with the plan of God. To ignore or downplay this is to be on the side of erroneous human thought and ...