... Notes 6:9 The man of God sent word: Are we meant to think that since Elisha offers Jehoram his help and the king adopts a respectful attitude in v. 21, something has altered in the king-prophet relationship since 2 Kgs. 3? The evidence does not support such an interpretation. Jehoram is quite prepared throughout his story to treat prophets properly when things are going well (as here). He is not quite so ready to do so when things are going badly (cf. 2 Kgs. 6:24–33). There is no evidence, on the ...
... stage at least, returned to Jerusalem. He was bound to be unpopular there, given the consequences for the city of his military folly. 14:22 He was the one . . . : For a recent discussion of Israel-Judah relations during the reigns of Azariah and Jeroboam that lends support to aspects of my reading of 14:15–22, see N. Na’aman, “Azariah of Judah and Jeroboam II of Israel,” VT 43 (1993), pp. 227–34. 14:25 From Lebo Hamath to the Sea of the Arabah: If the Hb. leḇôʾ ḥamāṯ is indeed intended ...
... rather than an enemy, particularly in view of the apparently unstable internal situation in Israel (he needed to strengthen his own hold on the kingdom, v. 19). He pays, therefore, to turn an enemy into a friend, just as Asa had once bought Ben-Hadad’s support against his enemy Baasha (1 Kgs. 15:16–20). No details are given about the deal that leads to Pul’s departure. It is an ominous development, however, for it is the king of Assyria who will eventually attack Samaria and take the Israelites into ...
... and in vv. 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, where the NIV translates it as “basing confidence” and “depending”). Does Hezekiah depend on human help from Egypt, as Hoshea did (2 Kgs. 17:4)? Pharaoh is only the splintered reed of a staff, unable to offer genuine support (v. 21). There is no evidence in Kings, of course, that Hezekiah does look to Egypt, but the Assyrian is covering all the possibilities. His next assault is right on the mark. Do Hezekiah and his officials depend on the LORD? Well then, what of the ...
... we hear of Babylon, the ultimate agent of divine judgment on Judah (cf. 2 Kgs. 20:12ff.). “Off-stage” it is the king of Babylon who has been taking the Assyrian empire apart (cf. the book of Nahum for a graphic treatment of its fall), in spite of Egyptian support (23:29). Now he comes at the head of the army sent by the LORD to destroy Judah . . . because of the sins of Manasseh (24:2–4; cf. 17:20; Dan. 1:1–2). He subdues Egypt and comes into possession of the whole Solomonic empire, from the Wadi ...
... , to repentance, and to forgiveness, even though it does not explicitly urge them to repentance and indicate that there is any way out. Isaiah will urge them to turn and will not merely repeat what 6:9–10 literally says, but he will meet a response that supports its truth (see ch. 7). 6:11–13 Even if judgment is inevitable, that is not the end of the story, for holiness also means faithfulness. For how long is the question that often appears in the Psalms, not as a request for information, but as a ...
... just outside Jerusalem. All the other OT references to Topheth come in Jeremiah except for the account of its defiling by Josiah in Jeremiah’s day (2 Kgs. 23:10). This and the links with Deuteronomy, such as that reference to Yahweh’s name, support the view that this passage comes specifically from the late seventh century when Assyria’s fall was indeed imminent (Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, p. 396). In this case, the reference to Assyria would have to be taken more literally. The focus on the “Assyrian ...
... :2 In the context, “the help of evildoers” is more likely the help that evildoers give than the help that other people give them, as NIV implies (cf. v. 3). 31:9 What “their stronghold will fall” (NRSV is similar) would mean is not clear. The link with 2:21 supports KJV’s “he shall pass over to his strong hold,” which also allows the verb to retain its more usual meaning and gives good parallelism.
... in who is being addressed. The Syriac, Targum, and Vulgate apparently had a text that divided the words differently and lacks the word “your” (see NRSV). V. 4 then follows v. 3 smoothly. 33:8 The fact that the preceding chapters often refer to cities but never to (plural) witnesses supports MT (NIV mg.). The Qumran text, which NIV follows, provides the word one might expect in the context if one ignores the fact that the chapter consistently links with what precedes.
... as their deliverance. That becomes explicit in verse 8. Vengeance (judicial recompense; see on 1:24) and retribution indicate the conviction that there is some justice to be sorted out with Edom. And to uphold Zion’s cause implies not the instinct to support my country, right or wrong, but rather the conviction that Zion is in the right. Inside this bracket, however, the “total destruction” of Edom again indicates that through this event Edom is being totally handed over to God (see on v. 2) and ...
... not understood the meaning of these many things (vv. 20, 25). Yahweh’s servant is himself blind and deaf. The opening imperatives (v. 18) might constitute the summons to another court scene, and the argumentative form of verses 18–25 as a whole supports this. It is an innovative court scene in which Yahweh for the first time appears as defendant, not plaintiff (Westermann, Isaiah 40–66, p. 109). Jacob-Israel has brought Yahweh to court with the accusation that Yahweh handed the people over to looters ...
... draw the line between the literal and the metaphorical). But the prophet is sure of vindication. When the relationship between master and servant first appeared in 41:8–16, we noted that it suggested the security of the servant, who had the master’s support. What applied there to the community applies here to the individual. That is one point about the recurrent “sovereign Yahweh.” That God helps me (vv. 7, 9): the verb occurred three times in 41:8–16. The events that will bring the people freedom ...
... of in the third person. Further, the key passage about the guilt-offering (’asham), Lev. 5–6, keeps using the word for life/person/self (nephesh) in connection with the guilt-offering: see, e.g., 5:15, 17 (NIV renders “a person”). This supports the understanding “he himself appoints a guilt-offering.” But the meaning remains obscure. NIV’s though is odd. The word usually means “if,” and this leads more naturally into what follows. 53:12 Many and numerous (NIV mg.) are more likely right, as ...
... its original magnificence. This expansion of previous glory is often found in typology. In the same way that the Judean community’s departure from Babylon was to both parallel the first exodus and exceed it in splendor, so the re-building of Jerusalem with the support of the nations is to parallel the first building and yet exceed it in splendor. (a) It will not involve merely one king and one queen, but nations and kings, people from far shores in their Tarshish ships (vv. 8–9; see on 23:1), with ...
... such a reading depends upon the Heb. nepesh designating a separable, external “soul,” a meaning it never has in biblical Heb. (Greenberg, Ezekiel 1–20, p. 240). Saggs (“External Souls,” pp. 10–12), to the contrary, cites examples which he claims support the notion of a separable, material soul in the HB. In particular, he claims that the “bundle of the living” in 1 Sam. 25:29 presupposes this concept. Saggs’ arguments, though, are unconvincing; none of his examples requires any reading for ...
... as a whole to repentance. Certainly there is an intriguing alternation from singular to plural throughout this section. Verses 30–32 use plural verbs for repentance, suggesting a collective act; yet the section begins with the singular (v. 27), supporting a more individual understanding of responsibility. Further, verse 30 compromises the collective emphasis with the individual character of divine judgment (“I will judge you, each one according to his ways”), as does verse 32 with the expression of ...
... v. 4). The references to tents and camels in verses 4–5 suggest that the people Ezekiel has in mind are Kedarites—Arabian tribes out of the eastern desert. Jeremiah 49:28, where “people of the East” refers to the Arab kingdom of Kedar, supports this identification. The Kedarite Arabs were an aggressive and hostile force on the borders of all the kingdoms in the Transjordan. By Ezekiel’s time they had already expanded into Edom and were a continual threat to Moab. The second judgment against Ammon ...
... ). Block argues that, as a unit, this chapter draws upon Jer. 23:1–6: “The linkages in theme and in structure, style, and diction are too numerous and too specific to be accidental, and their distribution throughout Ezek. 34 may support the unitary interpretation of the latter” (Block, Ezekiel 25–48, p. 275). Given the close relationship evident between these two prophetic books, dependence on Jer. is certainly possible. On the other hand, the many resemblances between these two chs. could represent ...
... ,” see M. Eliade, The Myth of the Eternal Return, or Cosmos and History [trans. W. Trask; Princeton: PUP, 1974], p. 13). The LXX, which has omphalos, and the Vulg., which reads umbilicus in both Ezek. 38:12 and Judg. 9:37, support this translation. On the other hand, the Tg. of Ezek. 38:12 reads “stronghold” for tabbur. Many contemporary interpreters, inferring from the two contexts in which tabbur appears, suggest that it refers to a geological feature—specifically, “an elevated plateau” (see ...
... motif woven throughout the Parables Discourse. Teaching the Text Jesus teaches that the kingdom has an element of hiddenness in the present time that takes eyes of faith to see. Jesus’ words about “the secrets of the kingdom of heaven” could be taken to support a kind of gnosticism, in which some people have an inside track on divine knowledge. Certainly, in some strands of the early church gnosticism became one way of interpreting such sayings of Jesus. And it is all too easy for Christians to claim ...
... ). In the first-century setting, doron refers to a vow made to dedicate some part of one’s property to God, specifically to the temple treasury.1In Matthew, the example that Jesus gives is of property devoted to God that might have been used to support one’s parents. Such a vow, which is not itself a Torah requirement, actually causes one to transgress the commandment to honor parents (Exod. 20:12). 15:7 You hypocrites! The reference to the Pharisees as hypocrites also occurs in the woes in 23:13 ...
Matthew 19:1-12, Matthew 19:13-15, Matthew 19:16-30
Teach the Text
Jeannine K. Brown
... least of these.” As the president of Compassion International, Stafford advocated for children in poverty, and his book contains numerous examples of what true compassion for children looks like. This might be an opportunity to encourage your listeners to consider supporting a child through an organization like Compassion International. Wealth, rather than being a sign of God’s favor, can be a barrier to following Jesus. Scripture: The story of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–11), who die as a result ...
... feasts, including Passover (26:2). Greek and Roman currencies had to be exchanged for the prescribed temple currency—coins from Tyre in Phoenicia, whose weight and value were considered close to the prescribed half shekel required from Jews for temple support (Exod. 30:11–16). It is unlikely, given that the functions of selling animals and changing money were necessary, that Jesus is protesting these per se. Rather, Matthew is likely indicating that Jesus protests the locating of these transactions ...
Matthew 22:15-22, Matthew 22:23-33, Matthew 22:34-40, Matthew 22:41-46
Teach the Text
Jeannine K. Brown
... up with the Herodians (22:16), try to trap Jesus with a question about paying the imperial tax. Although the exact identity of “the Herodians” is unclear (not known from other primary sources), we may presume that they are associated with and supporters of the Herodian dynasty. If so, they provide an unlikely pairing with the Pharisees (though united in their antagonism toward Jesus), who were more likely to critique Herodian leadership and practices as lax concerning the law. You aren’t swayed by ...
... shut the door of the kingdom” to others (e.g., 12:22–24; cf. 16:12). 23:14 You devour widows’ houses. This verse, a woe about mistreating widows and saying long prayers, is very likely not original to Matthew’s Gospel. It has limited manuscript support (only later and less reliable witnesses include it), and it likely is an interpolation from Mark and/or Luke (cf. Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47). 23:16 You say, “If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing.” Matthew 23:16–22 indicts those ...