... God could be approached in a special sense, and hinting that Jesus had become the new access to God. In other words, to be understood as Mark intended, the story of Jesus’ actions in 11:15–19 has to be read through the “lens” of early Christian understanding of Jesus and the church. Additional Notes 11:12 Leaving Bethany: It appears that Jesus spent the nights in Bethany and went into Jerusalem during the day. The distance is about two miles, making Bethany a suburb of the city. 11:13 A fig tree is ...
... to supply the answer. They know that the resurrection declares that Jesus the Messiah is David’s Lord, since Jesus has been exalted to the right hand of God, where he rules in divine power. 12:38–40 Having just shown the inadequacy of the understanding of the Messiah popular among the teachers of the law (scribes), Mark now shows Jesus giving a general criticism of the scribes as a group for abuse of their respected position in Jewish society. The next passage (12:41–44) concerning a poor widow should ...
... salvation” (sōtērion) is relatively rare in the NT, with three of its four occurrences in Luke–Acts. Tannehill (pp. 40–42) notes that Luke borrowed it from the LXX (as seen in the evangelist’s citation of Isa. 40:5) and probably wanted the reader to understand that Simeon was one of the first to see God’s salvation, a salvation which, thanks to the apostolic mission, the whole Roman Empire would eventually see. 2:32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles: Isa. 42:6; 49:6; 60:1. Isa. 49:6 will be ...
... the 5,000 (9:12–17). Although Luke’s omission of the feeding of the 4,000 (Matt. 15:32–38; Mark 8:1–9) is understandable in light of its redundancy, it is curious that he chose to omit the episode of Jesus walking on the sea (Matt. 14:25–33; Mark ... ). Whereas the Gospels record that the reaction to Jesus’ miracles was often one of amazement (see Luke 5:26), the NT primarily understands miracles as signs indicating that God is present and is at work (see especially the Gospel of John). In Luke 7:18 ...
... warning in v. 18 (see note below) has the same meaning as its counterpart in Mark 4:23–25 and fits into the theme of the whole passage nicely. Listening carefully and heeding the words of Jesus results in more understanding; but failing to pay attention may result in forfeiting whatever understanding one may have had (as in the warning in v. 10 above). Additional Note 8:18 Lachs (pp. 219–20) cites rabbinic sayings that parallel Luke 8:18: “The Holy One … puts more into a full vessel but not into ...
... 67–68 (see Josephus, War 4.335). Therefore, vv. 50–51 would fit v. 49 better; that is, obstinate Jews have always murdered God’s messengers, from the time of Abel down to the time of the Christian message about Jesus. It is probably better to understand the reference to Zechariah as the priest of 2 Chronicles 24, at least when the saying was first uttered. (Of course, when Luke writes a connection with the “son of Bareis” may have been seen.) In the OT, however, it is the prophet Zechariah who is ...
... the fire refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, as seen in Acts 2:3, where the Spirit manifests itself as “tongues of fire.” This may be, but it seems hardly suitable for the context here. The context seems to call for an understanding of this fire in terms of judgment (recall 3:16–17). Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and subsequent proclamation by his followers will bring about a crisis. In v. 50 Jesus refers to his baptism, undoubtedly a reference to his impending death. It is ironic to ...
... view his disgrace and degradation have reached their lowest level. (Fitzmyer [p. 1088] cites b. Baba Qamma 82b: “Cursed be the man who raises pigs.”) Eventually he came to his senses. As the context suggests, the younger son has finally come to a true understanding of himself and of his situation. He recognizes that he has fallen to a low estate (indeed, one lower than that of his father’s servants) and recognizes that he has sinned against heaven and against his father. He knows that he is no longer ...
... is impossible for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God, his likening the difficulty to a camel, the largest beast of Palestine, trying to pass through the eye of a needle, the smallest opening, suggests that it is impossible (see Luke 6:24). This understanding clearly lies behind the question of v. 26: Who then can be saved? This question must be understood against the popular view that rich people are those people who have been favored and blessed of God. If rich people do not qualify for entry into ...
... yet one last woe upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem (23:28–31). Although this section (21:20–24) is significantly different from Mark 13:14–19 (as well as from the entire discourse), I must agree with Fitzmyer (p. 1326) that it is best to understand the Lucan version as an edited version of Mark 13, into which Luke has inserted a few distinctive sayings from material unique to him. What was in Mark an apocalyptic oracle describing the desecration of the temple has become in Luke a prophecy of Jerusalem ...
... content of belief. Frequently, this phrase which is translated quite literally in the NIV is rendered “in your faith” in other versions. The use of the definite article “the” as if it were a personal pronoun is common or normal in Greek, and that understanding or translation is acceptable in this verse. Exactly what Paul means by this phrase is unclear. Perhaps he does intend to indicate certain basic matters of belief, such as those already registered in 15:3–8, but he may well mean to indicate ...
... cause human suffering (cf. Matt. 24:13–14). The penal island of Patmos, off the west coast of Asia Minor, was settled by exiled political enemies of the Roman government. The exact circumstances of John’s imprisonment are still contested among scholars. John understands his banishment to Patmos to be the result of his proclamation of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. In a world where civil religion was considered the duty of every good citizen, the public proclamation of the Christian gospel ...
... in the terms of a realized eschatology (so Caird, Revelation, pp. 254–55), while others prefer the terms of a futuristic eschatology (so Ladd, Revelation, p. 268). John never speaks, however, of a second resurrection; therefore, the interpreter should understand first resurrection within this context as a symbol for the eschatological priority God accords to the regnant community of Christian overcomers. They are the first to experience the blessing and holiness of the eschaton when Christ returns in his ...
... to be the “holy war” instructions in Deuteronomy 20 that call for the destruction of all adult males (see below). The army may take other spoils of war. In other cases, the ban or devotion to destruction of “holy war” is to be total. Moses, however, understands this battle to be such a one and is upset that the women of Midian have been spared. They are the ones who seduced Israel into idolatry at Peor. Moses blames Balaam here, who has been killed in the battle, for the apostasy at Peor. Numbers ...
... to have required certain offerings, although the text never specifies them. Verse 38 notes that these festival observances are in addition to the customary Sabbath worship, as well as your gifts and votive and freewill offerings mentioned earlier. The NIV understandably takes these two verses as a parenthetical aside. 23:39–44 These verses provide further information on the Feast of Tabernacles. The section clearly associates the festival with the harvest: after you have gathered the crops of the land. It ...
... see the recovery of the ark not as a transfer of control from Philistia back to Israel but as it was—an expression of God’s sovereignty over both Philistia and Israel. Apparently that change in attitude had not yet taken place. The failure to understand the awesome nature of God’s sovereignty and to respect the ark as a symbol of God’s presence led to further tragedy. Seventy people died because of their irreverent actions. Joshua had warned the ordinary Israelites to keep as much as a thousand ...
... 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 ...
... look at Saul, perhaps recognizing him by his height, and this explains her horrified reaction. However, Saul believed Samuel had appeared to him. 28:15–16 Samuel’s complaint that he has been disturbed ties in with what we know of the early understanding of the fate of the dead. There was no real belief in ongoing life, but because nonexistence was incomprehensible they were seen as inhabiting the underworld, Sheol, in a kind of shadowy nonlife comparable to sleep. Saul’s statement that God has turned ...
... this was not an only or an eldest son. So David’s excessive mourning, which made his entourage fear that news of the child’s death might cause suicide, was as unexpected as his later behavior. But the writers wanted to portray David’s relationship with and understanding of God and possibly to bring out the differences from Saul’s reactions to his sin, where Saul tried to excuse his actions (1 Sam. 13:11–12; 15:13–21). David knew that God was not an arbitrary dictator but that he did relate with ...
... ’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 ...
... took the bread, Satan entered into him, almost as if he remembers actually seeing it happen. If the signal was indeed for him, his fascination with Judas as an instrument of Satan through much of his Gospel (cf. 6:70–71; 13:2; 17:12) is understandable. Whether the narrator is himself the beloved disciple or whether he is drawing on eyewitness material that comes from this person, he seems to assume the beloved disciple’s place at the table and to write from his standpoint. The ignorance of the rest of ...
... (cf. Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13) both from Judas the traitor and from Jude the brother of Jesus (cf. Mark 6:3/Matt. 13:55; Jude 1). Judah’s question, which at first glance seems overshadowed by the preceding discourse material, is actually a key to understanding the whole, for it picks up details from Jesus’ promises in verses 16–20 that might otherwise have passed unnoticed. Judah asks, But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world? (v. 22). Jesus had spoken in verses 16–17 ...
... , ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete (v. 24b), are appropriate to the time of the church’s mission but inappropriate to the time of consummation, after Jesus’ Second Coming. They are commands that the author and his readers would naturally understand as directed to them, in their own time and situation (cf. 14:13–14; 15:7, 16). The completion of their joy corresponds to what Jesus prays for in 17:13. Nor can this gladness be differentiated from that mentioned in verses 20–22 ...
... . 24:16] because he claimed to be the Son of God (v. 7). The mention of the title Son of God for the first time in the Passion narrative recalls earlier disputes between Jesus and the Jewish authorities (e.g., 5:18; 10:33, 36). It was the understanding that Jesus was claiming to be “God,” or “equal with God,” that led all along to charges of blasphemy (10:33), attempts to stone him (8:59; 10:31), and the fixed determination that sooner or later he must die (5:18). To Pilate, however, divine sonship ...