... of government. However, it may be that it was far enough away from Jerusalem to avoid being immediately overrun but near enough to use as a base for launching an attack. It was Absalom’s birthplace (3:2–3), which may have helped David to make sense of Absalom’s request to fulfill his vow to worship God there, but this is unlikely to have influenced Absalom’s choice otherwise. 15:12 Ahithophel had served David loyally. If he was Bathsheba’s grandfather (see 11:3; 23:34) then his having lost respect ...
... he had given up hope that other sons would be born. Thus building a personal memorial pillar could be seen as a sign of arrogant ostentation, but it could also mean that the desecration of his sister and the death of his children had left him with a sense of deep insecurity. Or he may have had a premonition that he would not live long enough to have more sons. Absalom remains a fallen hero rather than a straightforward villain. 18:21 Cush was south of Egypt, in parts of Sudan and Ethiopia. It is possible ...
... More literally the MT says: “he will deal with the mightiest fortresses with [the help of] a foreign god.” With a slight repointing of the text, it can be read: “he will deal with those who enclose fortresses—people of a foreign god.” This makes more sense and connects better with the next two parts of the verse, because all three clauses are about people: He will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people (11:39). The fortress in view is the hated Akra, a ...
... , are alternate ways of saying that Jesus is the Messiah (cf. vv. 41, 45). The designation of Israel’s anointed king as God’s son goes back to Psalm 2:6–7. The Gospel writer knows that Jesus is the Son of God in a more profound sense than Nathanael could have understood (cf. 1:14, 18), yet he allows Nathanael (like John the Baptist) to speak for the Christian community. Nathanael’s Son of God and King of Israel anticipate the Gospel writer’s hope that all his readers “may believe that Jesus is ...
... Gospel, and there are hints, as we have seen, that the exposition of scripture may have played a larger part in the temple discourse than first appears (cf. vv. 15, 22–23). Verse 39 is a comment of the narrator in any case, and such a comment makes good sense on the assumption that Jesus himself is still the speaker in verse 38. If, on the other hand (as in version 3), the narrator is already responsible for most of verse 38, then in verse 39 he is commenting on his own appended words (i.e., the scripture ...
... that the meal took place at night also support such a theory). If it is a Passover meal, however, it is obviously a private one celebrated at least one day in advance (cf. v. 1). The author clearly does not regard it as the Passover in a literal, chronological sense. Possibly it is a solemn meal held in lieu of the Passover one precisely because “Jesus knew that the time had come for him to leave this world” (v. 1); by the time the official meal was to be eaten, he would be gone. Yet the disciples, at ...
... , How can we know the way? (v. 5), introduces the new thought that Jesus himself is the way (v. 6). Jesus’ answer centers on himself; it is neither necessary to know where he is going, in the sense of Jewish apocalyptic speculations about the structure of the heavens, nor the way, in the sense of a formula for escaping this world and attaining salvation (as in Gnosticism and the Hellenistic mystery religions). What is necessary is simply to know Jesus in personal faith and to trust him as the only one ...
... it was these soldiers who had actually nailed Jesus to the cross (in v. 18). Verses 16b–22 are, in an important sense, an extension—the conclusion, in fact—of the running battle of wills between Pilate and the Jewish authorities from 18:28 to ... Father who had sent him (10:18; cf. also Luke 23:46). The clear reference to Jesus’ death in verse 30 means that, in one sense, all that is described in verses 31–33 is beside the point as far as Jesus is concerned. The purpose of breaking the victim’s ...
... it was these soldiers who had actually nailed Jesus to the cross (in v. 18). Verses 16b–22 are, in an important sense, an extension—the conclusion, in fact—of the running battle of wills between Pilate and the Jewish authorities from 18:28 to ... Father who had sent him (10:18; cf. also Luke 23:46). The clear reference to Jesus’ death in verse 30 means that, in one sense, all that is described in verses 31–33 is beside the point as far as Jesus is concerned. The purpose of breaking the victim’s ...
... Jesus’ resurrection. She, not Peter (cf. 1 Cor. 15:5; Luke 24:34), was the first to see the risen Jesus. The disciples are never called “the apostles” in John’s Gospel. The Greek word apostolos, “apostle,” occurs only in 13:16, in the sense of “messenger.” But Mary was a kind of “apostle to the apostles,” a messenger sent to Jesus’ gathered disciples with the good news that he was rejoining his Father—and theirs (vv. 17–18). The Lord himself was close behind his messenger and would ...
... -chariot (cf. G. Scholem), for the text recounts that Paul was caught up to the third heaven. The verb harpazein is used here as elsewhere in the sense of being taken up and carried away at another’s initiative. In regard to whether the experience was in the body or out of the body, the ... vii 17b.630; also Photius Bibl. 175b). These examples show that Paul uses the dative sarki in a locative sense, and that his elliptical expression skolops t? sarki means “a thorn (stuck) in the flesh.” It is no use ...
... response is a laughing “My lord is rather old!” (Gen. 18:12 LXX). Thus both in verse 1 and in verse 5 the meaning of the wife’s submission to her husband concerns the sexual relationship and should not be taken in a more general and oppressive sense. It is noticeable that much more advice is addressed to wives (six verses) than to husbands (just v. 7), for the former were in far more need of support and guidance in what could be a tricky situation. The position of women in the ancient world was never ...
... , this approach reveals that God wants his people to be engaged with him in interceding for the peoples, especially those under threat of judgment. Yahweh continued by describing Abraham as the one he had chosen, literally “known.” “Know” here carries the sense of selecting a person in order to develop a close personal relationship. Having chosen Abraham, God charged him with the responsibility of directing his children and his household after him to keep the way of Yahweh. That is, they are to do ...
... obligation to help the others. The principle expressed here remained an ideal in Israel. In fact, in the turbulent centuries that followed, about the only thing that united the scattered tribes of Israel was this sense of mutual obligation, arising from a common awareness of being “Israel” and a common sense of commitment to Yahweh as the God of Israel. This unity was an ideal that was usually recognized only when it was broken. Thus, at the time of the great conflict with the Canaanites under Deborah ...
... Deuteronomy. Since Moses’ purpose was to exhort the new generation not to go on failing as their parents had done, one can understand why his reference to his own exclusion dwells on the people’s part in it and omits his own. In a sense, then, the phrase because of you is justified. Though not without fault himself, Moses was bearing the punishment of his own generation (that of the exodus) along with them, and bearing the punishment that even the following generation should have had. Nobody deserved to ...
... ’s own mission in the created world (cf. Rom. 8:18–27). Additional Notes 9:2 Anakites: Cf. 1:28. 9:3 Quickly: In this context, “quickly” is used to give the people assurance of success, but is qualified in reality (cf. 7:22f.). 9:4 The best sense is gained if the direct speech of the people is continued to the end of verse 4. This also avoids the apparently redundant repetition of verse 4b in verse 5. The word No is not strictly in the Hb.; it is an interpretative rendering of the simple conjunction ...
... will, however, be delayed until 1 Kings 21:21–24. His first task is to tackle the problem of the Baal-worship that Ahab has introduced into Israel (16:31–32), so as to demonstrate beyond all doubt that Baal is no more a god in any real sense than Jeroboam’s calves are. Chapter 17 provides the context in which the climactic demonstration of this truth will take place (18:16–40): the divinely ordained drought of 17:1. It also prepares us for the demonstration by showing us that it is the LORD, and not ...
... not explicitly associated with God either, but it is clearly God who is speaking. We often find such indirectness of speech in the OT when God is described, lest the outward manifestations of the divine reality should be confused by the reader with its actuality. In one sense, of course, God can no more “have” a voice than be “in” wind, earthquake, and fire. Yet the OT describes God as speaking to mortals with a voice (e.g., qôl in Gen. 3:8) and as appearing in the midst of natural cataclysm (e.g ...
... not explicitly associated with God either, but it is clearly God who is speaking. We often find such indirectness of speech in the OT when God is described, lest the outward manifestations of the divine reality should be confused by the reader with its actuality. In one sense, of course, God can no more “have” a voice than be “in” wind, earthquake, and fire. Yet the OT describes God as speaking to mortals with a voice (e.g., qôl in Gen. 3:8) and as appearing in the midst of natural cataclysm (e.g ...
... , for example, it has been rendered as “child/boy” (3:7; 11:17; 14:3, 17), “young man” (11:28), or “servant” (18:43; 19:3). It seems more likely, then, that we are to understand naʿar here as a reference to “servants” in a very generalized sense, taking our lead from 1 Sam. 17:33, where the contrast (in a narrative where the theme is also that “the battle is the LORD’s,” 17:47) is between the young, untrained David (naʿar) and the warrior Goliath. It is remarkable that it is said of ...
... , for example, it has been rendered as “child/boy” (3:7; 11:17; 14:3, 17), “young man” (11:28), or “servant” (18:43; 19:3). It seems more likely, then, that we are to understand naʿar here as a reference to “servants” in a very generalized sense, taking our lead from 1 Sam. 17:33, where the contrast (in a narrative where the theme is also that “the battle is the LORD’s,” 17:47) is between the young, untrained David (naʿar) and the warrior Goliath. It is remarkable that it is said of ...
... , “until this day”). Yet in a context where an everlasting promise is being cited, it seems likely that we are being told about God’s continuing attitude to Israel in the postexilic period in which Kings was coming into its final shape. Such an understanding helps to make sense of the chapter and the book as a whole. Israel is still the people of the exodus (cf. 1 Kgs. 8:22ff.). It may be punished, but it will not be destroyed or “blotted out” now (2 Kgs. 14:27), any more than it was then (Deut. 9 ...
... The organized cult in the postexilic age is thereby portrayed as a continuation of the past and not as something new that developed during the Persian period. 23:25–26 and 23:28–32 Up to this point references to the Levites were in the generic sense. In 23:25–32 (excluding 23:27; see Additional Note) it becomes clear, however, that a special group of Levites is now meant, namely, those who had a special position in the cultic service. Their functions are explicated in the only direct speech section in ...
... The organized cult in the postexilic age is thereby portrayed as a continuation of the past and not as something new that developed during the Persian period. 23:25–26 and 23:28–32 Up to this point references to the Levites were in the generic sense. In 23:25–32 (excluding 23:27; see Additional Note) it becomes clear, however, that a special group of Levites is now meant, namely, those who had a special position in the cultic service. Their functions are explicated in the only direct speech section in ...
... The organized cult in the postexilic age is thereby portrayed as a continuation of the past and not as something new that developed during the Persian period. 23:25–26 and 23:28–32 Up to this point references to the Levites were in the generic sense. In 23:25–32 (excluding 23:27; see Additional Note) it becomes clear, however, that a special group of Levites is now meant, namely, those who had a special position in the cultic service. Their functions are explicated in the only direct speech section in ...