... . 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 ...
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... speech and anger demonstrate. Meekness is itself a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:23; James 3:13) and a mark of those who will receive the Kingdom (Matt. 5:5). In this context it is a call to humble oneself before God and accept God’s way of leaving vengeance to him, to not reject the gospel teaching and take vengeance into one’s own hands. This humble acceptance of the teaching of Jesus has a saving effect. 1:22 The topic of accepting or obeying the word shifts James from the idea of speech to that of ...
... as it was with pagan religious practices in which a Christian could not engage. Acute problems, therefore, face Christian wives whose husbands do not believe the word of the gospel message, and Peter seeks to offer such women wise advice. He does not tell them to leave their husbands, any more than Paul does when dealing with the same difficulty (1 Cor. 7:13–16). Peter encourages them to persevere in seeking to win their husbands to Christ. Wives are not to try to achieve this end by preaching at them or ...
... to think that now the conversation is over, but it is not. Moses, who knew he would not speak to Pharaoh again, still had to deliver the warning of the last plague, the death of the firstborn. He did this immediately following (11:4–8), leaving the pharaoh “hot with anger.” Additional Notes 10:1 For further discussion of the issues attendant to the hardening of the pharaoh’s heart see the following: Childs, Exodus, pp. 170–75; Fretheim, Exodus, pp. 96–103; Wilson, “The Hardening of Pharaoh’s ...
... was the sign that God had fully forgiven and restored Israel. The Lord was present in their midst as never before. 40:1–8 See (A) above. The Lord instructed Moses to set up the tabernacle on the first day of the first month in the second year after leaving Egypt (see v. 17). This was according to the new calendar God had given them as they left Egypt (13:4; 23:15). They had been at Mount Sinai for nine months. The first item Moses set up was the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting. “The tabernacle” here ...
... ways of reading these verses, when it would probably be better to opt for either one or the other in both verses. In Hb., ʾ e lōhîm, without a definite article, can mean God (i.e., assumed to be Yahweh), or a god, or gods. Contexts usually leave no doubt as to which is intended in each case. If we take the second of the NIV’s options (v. 34) first, then Moses’ questions are primarily contrasting Yahweh with other gods: “Has any people heard the voice of a god [i.e., their own god] speaking out ...
... (Hb. šlḥ, vv. 21–22). The plea is well-remembered from Israel’s past (cf. Exod. 5:1; 7:16; 8:1 etc.), but on this occasion Pharaoh fails to harden his heart, and Hadad (the narrative implies, without being specific about the circumstances) is allowed to leave for Edom. Solomon’s first adversary is thus, ironically, set upon him by an old enemy of Israel whom he had unwisely treated as a friend (1 Kgs. 3:1). 11:23–25 Rezon son of Eliada had apparently either escaped from the battle described in 2 ...
... (Hb. šlḥ, vv. 21–22). The plea is well-remembered from Israel’s past (cf. Exod. 5:1; 7:16; 8:1 etc.), but on this occasion Pharaoh fails to harden his heart, and Hadad (the narrative implies, without being specific about the circumstances) is allowed to leave for Edom. Solomon’s first adversary is thus, ironically, set upon him by an old enemy of Israel whom he had unwisely treated as a friend (1 Kgs. 3:1). 11:23–25 Rezon son of Eliada had apparently either escaped from the battle described in 2 ...
... used by their characters (“taken” is Hb. lqḥ in vv. 3, 5, 9, 10), and never explained. It is language that guards the mystery at the heart of the event and does not allow us easy answers. 2:19–25 With the two concluding stories of the chapter we leave behind uncertainties about the fate of Elijah (vv. 16–18) and concentrate upon what is clear (picking up vv. 13–15): that Elisha has indeed taken his place. He is an authentic prophet—a man able both to bless and to curse in the LORD’s name (cf ...
... used by their characters (“taken” is Hb. lqḥ in vv. 3, 5, 9, 10), and never explained. It is language that guards the mystery at the heart of the event and does not allow us easy answers. 2:19–25 With the two concluding stories of the chapter we leave behind uncertainties about the fate of Elijah (vv. 16–18) and concentrate upon what is clear (picking up vv. 13–15): that Elisha has indeed taken his place. He is an authentic prophet—a man able both to bless and to curse in the LORD’s name (cf ...
... used by their characters (“taken” is Hb. lqḥ in vv. 3, 5, 9, 10), and never explained. It is language that guards the mystery at the heart of the event and does not allow us easy answers. 2:19–25 With the two concluding stories of the chapter we leave behind uncertainties about the fate of Elijah (vv. 16–18) and concentrate upon what is clear (picking up vv. 13–15): that Elisha has indeed taken his place. He is an authentic prophet—a man able both to bless and to curse in the LORD’s name (cf ...
... chariot driving. Who knows how one madman will react to the words of another (v. 11)? Who knows, and perhaps this is the reason for the secrecy, how the other officers will react to the idea that Jehu should be king? It is better just to do the job and leave quickly. 9:7 I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets: It is not explicitly stated in 1 Kgs. 21:21–24 that the LORD’s action against Ahab’s house is partly a matter of vengeance for the blood of the prophets. It is, however, implicit ...
... chariot driving. Who knows how one madman will react to the words of another (v. 11)? Who knows, and perhaps this is the reason for the secrecy, how the other officers will react to the idea that Jehu should be king? It is better just to do the job and leave quickly. 9:7 I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets: It is not explicitly stated in 1 Kgs. 21:21–24 that the LORD’s action against Ahab’s house is partly a matter of vengeance for the blood of the prophets. It is, however, implicit ...
... the reader to realize that a permanent location for the ark (17:1) is closely related to building “a house to dwell in” for Yahweh. The ark as a symbol of Yahweh’s presence is thus affirmed. Although Yahweh’s words to David in 17:5–6 leave the impression that he has never before required a house of cedar and that a temple will be unnecessary, the issue of building the temple still remains part of the promise to David’s son Solomon. McKenzie also does not see a total repudiation in these words ...
... the now illicit unions. An empathetic reading of the story leads us to the challenge Jesus posed to his followers in Mark 10:29–30 (also Matt. 19:29–30; Luke 18:29–30) as a biblical parallel, to the call that sometimes comes to believers to leave children and other family members for the sake of Jesus and the gospel. Additional Notes 10:1 For discussion of the widely held view that this chapter was an adaptation of the Ezra memoirs, see Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, pp. 145–48. It is not obvious why ...
... from the north, avoiding the main road and the cities it would have to confront there. In part it follows a line to the east of the main road along the ridge, via Ai. Near Michmash it involves negotiating a deep wadi (NIV pass; see 1 Sam. 14) and therefore leaving the baggage there (Oswalt, Isaiah 1–39, pp. 274–75). Halfway down this route the army camps at Geba, seven miles northeast of Jerusalem, and the next day it is in a position to look down at the city (see on 2:2–5) as it reaches the brow of ...
... then we discover that it is being redirected. Yahweh’s horror and offendedness now apply to Assyria (10:5–15). Assyria is now the forest of trees to be destroyed (10:16–19). Judah’s remnant will find its way back to Yahweh, though this promise leaves us in some uncertainty because of the way it ends (10:20–23). The section 10:24–11:16 then parallels 10:5–23. Again the audience is encouraged that Yahweh has finished using Assyria to punish Judah (10:24–27), again a triumphant Assyrian advance ...
... this advice. It is even possible that Jeremiah 37 reports the specific episode that led to his arrest. During a break in the siege, precipitated by the withdrawal of the Babylonian army to deal with an apparent threat from the Egyptians, Jeremiah tried to leave Jerusalem to go home to Benjamin to deal with some real estate issues (perhaps the one resolved here). He was arrested as if he was going over to the Babylonian side. Zedekiah’s question “Why do you prophesy as you do?” reveals a fundamental ...
... are evergreens. Evergreens are trees that stay green all year long. They don't change colors. They don't lose their leaves. No matter how much rain and snow and cold and rough weather we get, an evergreen tree stays green. It rarely changes. That's why we ... use them for Christmas trees. After other trees have turned brown or lost their leaves for the winter, the evergreen tree will still be green and full. Just like we can always count on an evergreen to stay ...
... ? Forgiveness is a redemptive act that is essential to our mental, emotional and spiritual well being. It is not enough to simply “act civil” toward a person who has wronged us--to let “by-gones be by-gones.” We must move from our hurt to reconciliation or else we leave an open wound that is not allowed to heal. But how? How do we forgive? Let’s begin by asking, why do we find it so hard to forgive? Obviously, one answer is that the pain is simply too deep to forgive. There is a man whose name has ...
... earth. Listen carefully to his words: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch. “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back--whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when ...
... Miller grabbed a large sponge, dipped it into the toilet, and proceeded to wipe the lipstick prints off the mirrors. After that, amazingly, no more lipstick prints appeared on the mirrors. John Ed Mathison said that the girls made an “informed decision” to never leave lipstick prints again. (2) I believe those girls could be said to have truly repented. It is unusual that a preacher could make an entire region of people so aware of their need for repentance and baptism as John did. Maybe people came at ...