... 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 (see 17:1–8 for the same group). A great sense of grief and dismay laid hold of Jesus. To the three disciples he acknowledged that his heart was at the point of breaking with sorrow. The GNB aptly translates, “The sorrow in my heart is so great that it almost crushes me” (v. 38). The words reflect Psalms 42 ...
... that Jesus was in fact the Messiah and, if so, the totally unexpected could well take place. Pilate answers, Take a guard, go and make the tomb “as safe as you think necessary” (Phillips). The Greek echete is probably imperative (“you have” in the sense of “take a guard/you can have a guard”) rather than indicative (“you have a guard of your own [the temple guard], you’ll need no help from me”). So the chief priests and Pharisees secured the tomb by sealing the stone and placing ...
... 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, ... the gospel implies that the person charged has come to the attention of authorities on account of preaching the Christian message. The gospel in this absolute sense is with one exception used only in Mark and in Paul (see, e.g., 1:15; 10:29; 13:10; Acts 15:7; Rom. 10:16 ...
... –34). The new element in this prediction is the mention that the Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of men. The verb used here in Greek has a most interesting significance in the NT. It can mean to betray someone, and it is used in this sense to describe Judas’ treachery in 14:41–42. But the term is also used to describe God’s action, where it carries the note of being handed over or given up for judgment or punishment (e.g., Rom 1:24, 26, 28), and, very significantly, this includes the idea ...
... of God (the people, not any building; cf., e.g., 1 Cor. 3:16–17). This notion may have been connected with the idea that Jesus’ resurrection body was the new temple (John 2:13–23) and that the church, which was his “body” in a spiritual sense (e.g., 1 Cor. 12:27), became the new temple by union with the risen Christ. In short, Mark’s readers may have seen Jesus’ attack on the Jerusalem temple as prefiguring the Christian belief that the sanctity and significance of that temple has passed to ...
... to stand firm in trials of their faith. The prayer of Jesus, which describes what is about to happen as God’s will (v. 36), teaches the readers that the handing over of the Son of Man to sinners (v. 41) was, in its most profound sense, something done by God and not by Judas. Thus Jesus’ arrest and execution, which could be regarded as disastrous, are again affirmed to be part of the deliberate plan of God. Additional Notes 14:32 Gethsemane means (in Hebrew) “olive press,” and it was probably an ...
... ). Both parents ask, “How?” (Zechariah, 1:18; Mary, 1:34). Both are given signs (Zechariah, 1:20; Mary, 1:36). There is joy over the birth of each son (John, 1:58; Jesus, 2:15–18). Following John’s circumcision, neighbors react in fear, sensing God at work (1:59–66). Following Jesus’ circumcision, the righteous Simeon and Anna recognize that in Jesus God was at work (2:21–38). On both occasions canticles are sung (because of John, the Benedictus, 1:68–79; because of Jesus, the Nunc Dimittis ...
... ). Both parents ask, “How?” (Zechariah, 1:18; Mary, 1:34). Both are given signs (Zechariah, 1:20; Mary, 1:36). There is joy over the birth of each son (John, 1:58; Jesus, 2:15–18). Following John’s circumcision, neighbors react in fear, sensing God at work (1:59–66). Following Jesus’ circumcision, the righteous Simeon and Anna recognize that in Jesus God was at work (2:21–38). On both occasions canticles are sung (because of John, the Benedictus, 1:68–79; because of Jesus, the Nunc Dimittis ...
... ). Both parents ask, “How?” (Zechariah, 1:18; Mary, 1:34). Both are given signs (Zechariah, 1:20; Mary, 1:36). There is joy over the birth of each son (John, 1:58; Jesus, 2:15–18). Following John’s circumcision, neighbors react in fear, sensing God at work (1:59–66). Following Jesus’ circumcision, the righteous Simeon and Anna recognize that in Jesus God was at work (2:21–38). On both occasions canticles are sung (because of John, the Benedictus, 1:68–79; because of Jesus, the Nunc Dimittis ...
... Acts 6–28 reflects Israel’s “fall.” Not only has he unjustifiably reversed the sequence of falling and rising, it is unlikely in the first place that Luke attaches any temporal sense whatsoever to these words. It is more likely that he simply means that some will fall and some will rise (see Schweizer, p. 57), perhaps in the sense of reversal (see Tannehill, p. 29; and on p. 29, n. 37 Tannehill, in reference to Luke 2:34, refers to “upheaval within Israel”). By implication Israel will be divided ...
... 9–10 (as is especially seen in the last clause, “and be forgiven”), the Marcan paraphrase retains the telic, or final, sense of Isaiah’s terrible word of prophetic judgment: “And he said, ‘Go, and say to this people: “Hear and hear, but ... 234–35. The parable may reflect Isa. 55:10–11 and Jer. 4:3 as well. Note that Isa. 6:9–10 is employed in the same telic sense in John 9:39 and 12:40; see Craig A. Evans, “The Function of Isaiah 6:9–10 in Mark and John,” NovT 24 (1982), pp. 124–38 ...
... he even eats the very pods that the pigs were eating. From a Jewish point of 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 ...
... within the confines”). Remember also that the ten lepers “stood at a distance” because of their uncleanness (Luke 17:12). The tax collector in Jesus’ parable apparently viewed himself as unclean and unworthy. He would not even look up to heaven: The tax collector’s sense of sin is so great that he would not, as was customary, look toward heaven while he prayed. Tiede (p. 308) cites 1 Enoch 13:5, which in reference to the fallen angels states: “they did not raise their eyes to heaven out of shame ...
... of popular messianic enthusiasm his men are ready to take up arms. As Peter had said only moments before, they are ready to go to prison, even to death. Jesus, however, is no doubt disappointed (unless he took the comment of the disciples in a figurative sense) in their lack of perception and ends the discussion with the words, “Enough of this” (which is clearer than the NIV’s That is enough; see Fitzmyer, p. 1434; cf. 22:51) or “They are enough” (i.e., enough for the fulfillment of Isa. 53:12 ...
... plays off of the earlier command to “rejoice” (cf. 18:20)—although that imperative obliges the eschatological community to find joy in a condemned Babylon, while here it rejoices because the wedding of the Lamb has come. The former joy evokes not a sense of delight but of pathos for a people who refused God’s goodness. The current prospect of a wedding celebration allows the “saints and apostles and prophets” to be glad. Given the dynamic movement of John’s salvation from judgment to final ...
... a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (3:8). God’s patience resists human calculation (cf. Jubilees 4:30). In this sense, the events that comprise the day of the Lord (3:10) may seem to take a millennium—especially to scoffers! In our view, then, the ... corresponds well to the subsequent vision of those of the “first resurrection” who will reign with Christ. In Hendricksen’s sense, 20:1–3 adds a footnote to this central section of John’s vision. However, nowhere does it portray ...
... God’s blessing will not be defeated but is still at hand. God is moving the events of history. God will bring Israel into the land and bless this people. Additional Notes 24:22 The Hb. for Kenites is qayin, the ancestor of the Kenites. The sense of the last line of the verse is uncertain. The NIV renders ‘ad-mah as when, but it usually means “how long?” Asshur usually refers to the Assyrian Empire, but most commentators date Balaam’s oracles before that empire came on the scene. An alternative is ...
... the significance of the victory. Josh. 13:21–22 and Judg. 6–8 also recount wars with Midian and are related to Num. 31. 31:18 For further comment, see Susan Niditch, “War, Women and Defilement in Numbers 31,” Semeia 61 (1993), pp. 39–57. 31:32 The sense of the plunder remaining is unclear. Is it what is left after the army’s journey back to the camp? Some persons and animals may have been lost, and the army would have had to eat. More probably the phrase refers to what remains after carrying out ...
... the old Greek translation of the Hebrew text (the Septuagint, usually abbreviated LXX) is in two parts, the division seems arbitrary, and the split did not occur in the Hebrew text until the advent of the printing press in the fifteenth century. This original unity makes sense of the tradition of using Samuel’s name to describe the whole book even though Samuel makes no appearance in 2 Samuel. But the two books of Samuel are also closely linked with other material. The break at the end of 2 Samuel 24 is ...
... reader remembers that Samuel was dead and buried, that occult activity was forbidden in Israel, and that Saul had taken action to ensure that the law in this regard be kept. In an account that portrays Saul as at his lowest, there is still the underlying sense that he had on occasion fulfilled his responsibilities to keep the people in line with God’s laws—that he had had the potential to be a good king. The Philistines, on an occasion that is probably part of the campaign being planned in chapter 26 ...
... point in the battle. The Judeans were slowed by the sight of Asahel’s body, and the Benjamites, who formed the bulk of Abner’s forces at this stage, took courage and rallied behind Abner. Abner, who had common sense and no desire to kill fellow Israelites, even those from Judah, called for a truce. Joab, sensing that for that day his success had run its course, agreed, and both armies returned to their base—Abner’s troops to Ish-Bosheth at Mahanaim and Joab’s to David at Hebron. 3:1–5 Verse 1 ...
... for kingship set out in Deut. 17:14–20. The dual recognition of leaders by God and by the people led is a common motif in the OT. This second anointing of David, this time as king over Israel, not just Judah (2 Sam. 2:4), makes sense within that context (the original anointing of David by Samuel in 1 Sam. 16:13 indicated future potential rather than position). Theologically, David was king because God had chosen him as king. Sociologically, he was king (at least of the northern tribes) because he and the ...
... for kingship set out in Deut. 17:14–20. The dual recognition of leaders by God and by the people led is a common motif in the OT. This second anointing of David, this time as king over Israel, not just Judah (2 Sam. 2:4), makes sense within that context (the original anointing of David by Samuel in 1 Sam. 16:13 indicated future potential rather than position). Theologically, David was king because God had chosen him as king. Sociologically, he was king (at least of the northern tribes) because he and the ...
... David’s kingdom and in particular life in the royal court. 9:1–13 The story of David’s first encounter with Mephibosheth is told without editorial comment. It can be read as a charming picture of life at court, emphasizing David’s kindness and sense of responsibility. However, it can also be read as a further example of David’s political opportunism, using Saul’s family to bolster his own position within the country. There has been a long delay between David’s promise to care for Jonathan’s ...
... ’ vengeance. It has been suggested that this Mephibosheth is referred to here and the references to Jonathan are added to emphasize David’s loyalty to Jonathan. However, the same name recurs in families, and Jonathan had descendants (1 Sam. 20:15 makes no sense otherwise). There is no reason to assume anything other than that the text describes Mephibosheth, Jonathan’s son. See additional note on 9:2. 9:11 We have no record of what David’s sons felt about having Mephibosheth added to their number ...