... priest could question anyone who had heard Jesus on any number of occasions—his own priestly associates in fact—and draw his own conclusions. The exchange ends, like the Sanhedrin trial in Mark (14:65) and Matthew (26:67), with Jesus being subjected to physical abuse (v. 22). The reasons, however, are different. There is no “mocking” scene here. Instead, one of the guards, interpreting Jesus’ response as a refusal to answer the high priest’s question, and therefore as a sign of contempt, rebuked ...
... of faith among the nations (cf. Rom. 1:5). The NIV translates verse 9b to see if you would stand the test. A more literal translation would be “in order that I might know your character” (cf. Phil. 2:22). Paul was subjecting the Corinthians’ character to examination and approval, by seeing whether they would comply with his directive to punish the offender and thereby reaffirm Paul’s apostolic authority. Whereas in the previous context Paul has been handling accusations leveled against his own ...
... , is wisdom, which helps one in the test. Therefore the deeper message is: God does not send the test; he gives the good gift of wisdom that enables us to stand in the test. He gives the antidote, not the poison. Furthermore, the character of God is not subject to change. He is the Father of the heavenly lights. The reference is to creation, and it (and the one to the new creation in the next verse) indicates the extent of God’s goodness. The lights of Genesis 1:18, that is, the sun and moon, were placed ...
... . God declared that the ground, the source of life-giving food, was cursed because of his act. In contrast to land that is blessed, meaning that it has water and is fertile (Lev. 26:4), land under a curse lacks water, is infertile, and is subject to a variety of plagues (Lev. 26:20). Thorns and thistles would grow so thickly that they would rob the soil of moisture and nutrients and choke out the food-bearing plants. Consequently, in working the ground to produce food for life, the man would experience ...
... is the beginning of the second major section of this chapter (vv. 16–33). Having accomplished their primary purpose in visiting Abraham and Sarah, the three messengers set out on their journey. The reference to their looking down toward Sodom introduces the subject of this section. Continuing to be hospitable, Abraham walked along with them for a while to see them on their way. Yahweh then spoke. Whether he spoke to himself or to the messengers is not clear. Yahweh wondered if he should inform Abraham ...
... to stop follows almost anticlimatically, since it was predictable. The narrator then announces the pharaoh’s hard heart for the eighth and ninth times. Here both the Hebrew words translated “hard” (kabed, v. 34 and khazaq, v. 35) occur together. Pharaoh is the subject of both hardenings. The text mentions the hard hearts of his officials for the first and last time. Pharaoh had also exercised his prerogative to harden his own heart for the last time. The Lord would do all the hardening in the last ...
... against the angel’s guidance in 32:23, and the Lord had to intervene to forgive (34:6–7). The angel was not the Lord, but would deliver the guidance and protection of the Lord. The alternate use of the angel and “I” (the Lord) as subjects in verses 22–23 is typical of the interaction of the Lord and angels with people in Scripture. In the end, Moses’ conversations were always directly with the Lord and never with the angel. The effectiveness of the presence of the messenger was that he would ...
... (old or new) knowledge of God entails covenantal commitment to justice, just as covenantal love for God entails covenantal love for the neighbor. 4:37–38 If God’s purpose for Israel was to discipline and shape them through ethical obedience, his “subjective” motivation was his love for their forefathers. This forestalls any illusions of superiority Israel may have cherished (cf. 7:8ff.; 9:4–6). The theme of God’s love for Israel and their ancestors is unique to Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch (cf ...
... Moses.” Those who were immoral in their own lives, or self-seeking in their ambitions, were not “like Moses.” It was on these grounds that Jeremiah actually attacked the false prophets of his own generation (cf. Jer. 23). In the NT, prophets were subject to testing (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29–32). In our age, when we are faced with the multiplication of prophetic cults and sects, the adulation of people with “prophetic ministries,” and the proliferation of all kinds of “miracle” attested claims on our ...
... Moses.” Those who were immoral in their own lives, or self-seeking in their ambitions, were not “like Moses.” It was on these grounds that Jeremiah actually attacked the false prophets of his own generation (cf. Jer. 23). In the NT, prophets were subject to testing (cf. 1 Cor. 14:29–32). In our age, when we are faced with the multiplication of prophetic cults and sects, the adulation of people with “prophetic ministries,” and the proliferation of all kinds of “miracle” attested claims on our ...
... and endangering the family’s substance. 21:23 Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse: There is disagreement in both Jewish and Christian exegesis as to whether the Hb. (“a curse of God is the hanged one”) is a subjective genitive (“accursed by God”) or an objective genitive (“a curse [i.e., an offense] to God”). Both are possible. The majority verdict favors the former (as NIV). Cf. Bernstein, “Early Jewish Exegesis.” It is important to note that the hanging was an expression ...
... and endangering the family’s substance. 21:23 Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse: There is disagreement in both Jewish and Christian exegesis as to whether the Hb. (“a curse of God is the hanged one”) is a subjective genitive (“accursed by God”) or an objective genitive (“a curse [i.e., an offense] to God”). Both are possible. The majority verdict favors the former (as NIV). Cf. Bernstein, “Early Jewish Exegesis.” It is important to note that the hanging was an expression ...
... and endangering the family’s substance. 21:23 Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse: There is disagreement in both Jewish and Christian exegesis as to whether the Hb. (“a curse of God is the hanged one”) is a subjective genitive (“accursed by God”) or an objective genitive (“a curse [i.e., an offense] to God”). Both are possible. The majority verdict favors the former (as NIV). Cf. Bernstein, “Early Jewish Exegesis.” It is important to note that the hanging was an expression ...
... to covenant loyalty. Additional Notes 21:23 Anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse: There is disagreement in both Jewish and Christian exegesis as to whether the Hb. (“a curse of God is the hanged one”) is a subjective genitive (“accursed by God”) or an objective genitive (“a curse [i.e., an offense] to God”). Both are possible. The majority verdict favors the former (as NIV). Cf. Bernstein, “Early Jewish Exegesis.” It is important to note that the hanging was an expression ...
... the chapter begins (i.e., not if, but when). Similarly there is tremendous hope expressed in the even if of verse 4. No matter how severe the judgment or how distant the exile, God will restore the people. All hope is placed in God, who is the subject of most of the verbs in these verses. But that hope in the grace and power of God is integrally linked to the need for Israel to turn and obey. In fact, the whole section has a concentric arrangement that interweaves the divine and the human very powerfully ...
... makes good sense. Cf. C. J. H. Wright, God’s Land, pp. 40–43, to whose syntactical and contextual arguments must now be added the metrical argument of Christensen above. He was king (v. 5) must refer to Yahweh. Although grammatically it could refer to Moses, the subject of the subordinate clause in v. 4, there is no hint anywhere else in the Hb. Bible that Moses was ever regarded as a king in Israel. It is also unlikely that the opening phrase, wayy e hî melek, means “and there arose a king,” since ...
... should be noted, is also the people’s abandonment of God. This is demonstrated in the plural phrase, they have forsaken me, which reflects the way that in the book of Kings, kings are characteristically models for and representative of the behavior of their subjects. 11:34–39 The mitigation of 11:12–13 is repeated, although in a slightly different way. Solomon will not lose any tribes during his lifetime, and even his son is to retain one tribe so that David will always have a lamp . . . in Jerusalem ...
... should be noted, is also the people’s abandonment of God. This is demonstrated in the plural phrase, they have forsaken me, which reflects the way that in the book of Kings, kings are characteristically models for and representative of the behavior of their subjects. 11:34–39 The mitigation of 11:12–13 is repeated, although in a slightly different way. Solomon will not lose any tribes during his lifetime, and even his son is to retain one tribe so that David will always have a lamp . . . in Jerusalem ...
... does not seem entirely adequate. David had done what was right in the eyes of the LORD (v. 5). He was basically committed to God—he had been a faithful king. Yet even David sinned, in the case of Uriah the Hittite. He had, in fact, been the subject of God’s grace every bit as much as his successors. David’s piety is indeed a model for other kings; but it cannot be the complete explanation for the favor shown by God to the Davidic line. 15:9–15 By contrast with his immediately preceding ancestors ...
... more verse to the description of his reign of twenty-four years (15:33) than they do to the two-year reign of Nadab. 16:8–14 Like Jeroboam, Baasha does have a son succeed him, but Elah lasts no longer than Nadab (two years). He, too, is the subject of a conspiracy, though he is murdered, not in battle, but at home (v. 9). The assassin is Zimri, whose butchery on this occasion is not restricted to the family of Baasha only, but extends to friends (v. 11). The devotion of the house of Issachar to worthless ...
... more verse to the description of his reign of twenty-four years (15:33) than they do to the two-year reign of Nadab. 16:8–14 Like Jeroboam, Baasha does have a son succeed him, but Elah lasts no longer than Nadab (two years). He, too, is the subject of a conspiracy, though he is murdered, not in battle, but at home (v. 9). The assassin is Zimri, whose butchery on this occasion is not restricted to the family of Baasha only, but extends to friends (v. 11). The devotion of the house of Issachar to worthless ...
... more verse to the description of his reign of twenty-four years (15:33) than they do to the two-year reign of Nadab. 16:8–14 Like Jeroboam, Baasha does have a son succeed him, but Elah lasts no longer than Nadab (two years). He, too, is the subject of a conspiracy, though he is murdered, not in battle, but at home (v. 9). The assassin is Zimri, whose butchery on this occasion is not restricted to the family of Baasha only, but extends to friends (v. 11). The devotion of the house of Issachar to worthless ...
... more verse to the description of his reign of twenty-four years (15:33) than they do to the two-year reign of Nadab. 16:8–14 Like Jeroboam, Baasha does have a son succeed him, but Elah lasts no longer than Nadab (two years). He, too, is the subject of a conspiracy, though he is murdered, not in battle, but at home (v. 9). The assassin is Zimri, whose butchery on this occasion is not restricted to the family of Baasha only, but extends to friends (v. 11). The devotion of the house of Issachar to worthless ...
... more verse to the description of his reign of twenty-four years (15:33) than they do to the two-year reign of Nadab. 16:8–14 Like Jeroboam, Baasha does have a son succeed him, but Elah lasts no longer than Nadab (two years). He, too, is the subject of a conspiracy, though he is murdered, not in battle, but at home (v. 9). The assassin is Zimri, whose butchery on this occasion is not restricted to the family of Baasha only, but extends to friends (v. 11). The devotion of the house of Issachar to worthless ...
... ” and “boy” respectively (cf. also na‘arâ qeṭannâ, “young girl,” in 2 Kgs. 5:2). The translator has apparently had more difficulty than the authors here in coming to terms with the idea that young persons as well as old should be subject to divine judgment for their sins. Whether there is something more specific to the taunt you baldhead is not clear. It is possible that some prophets, like later Christian monks, shaved their heads as a mark of their vocation. We certainly cannot cite verses ...