... this temple was associated with a long religious tradition going back to the great king we know as Solomon, who reigned in the tenth century. However, the powerful God in whose honor it had been built had abandoned in displeasure both a recent generation and the original temple. The theme of divine abandonment of people and temple was a common one in Mesopotamia. A later king often rebuilt a ruined temple and restored its divine image by the will of the local god. So the story runs here, with Cyrus, the new ...
... Notes 7:73b The seventh month: Nehemiah’s memoirs used names for the months (1:2; 2:1; 6:15), while Ezra’s used numbers (Ezra 7:9; 8:31; 10:9, 16–17, as in Neh. 7:73b; 8:2, 14). The Israelites had settled in their towns must originally have referred to the party of immigrants who traveled with Ezra and arrived in Jerusalem in Ezra 8:32. Here it echoes and provides a neat link with 7:73a, which referred to immigrants long before Ezra’s and Nehemiah’s time—the phenomenon still applied at this late ...
... his desire to exterminate the Jews in Persia. On the eve of the Passover, a massacre is authorized in which a new generation of enemies is encouraged to destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews (v. 13). The word for “destroy” (shmd) represents the original intention of Haman in 3:6. The three terms together indicate the escalation of emotion and the totality of the destruction. The phrase that follows details this totality: young and old, women and little children (v. 13). To complete the defeat of the ...
... attack them and their women and children; and to plunder the property of their enemies (v. 11), empowers the Jews. This edict was sent out with haste to give the Jews time to prepare for military combat. The language echoes that of 3:13, for Haman’s original decree was also delivered with a sense of urgency. The effect of the decree was to publicize the right of the Jews to defend (v. 11; avenge, v. 13) themselves and take plunder. Everyone in the empire is hereby alerted to the shift in royal support to ...
... of the Jews and prosecutor of Haman) represents a politically adjusted “spin” that suits the official history in Persia well, with its newly sanctioned Jewish leadership. It may also reflect the hand of a later editor. This historical summary (with its explanation of the origin of the name “Purim”) also includes a theological interpretation. It names Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, as the one who had plotted against the Jews to destroy them (v. 24; compare 3:13; 8:11 ...
... passage come from the prophet himself? Certainly 1:10 and 2:1 reverse the judgments of 1:9 and 1:6 respectively. And Jezreel recalls 1:5. But the passage should be read primarily in relation to 2:21–23, and H. W. Wolff may be correct in stating that originally 1:10–2:1 followed 2:21–23. In 2:22, “Jezreel” takes on its etymological meaning of “God sows,” the figure being that of God sowing fertility in the land. That is the context of Jezreel here in 1:11 also. The primary emphasis of 1:10–2 ...
... only have as much authority as their armies and the general populace allow, they nevertheless exercise an almost absolute power, which invites either profound humility or hubris. Royal arrogance, unfortunately, is the primary motif characterizing kings in the Bible (e.g., Dan. 3). God originally intended Israel to be governed as a theocracy, ruled by the one, true, living God (but see Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14 20). Israel was to be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod. 19:6), but the people demanded a king (1 Sam ...
... to mind is that he is the Messiah (v. 26), but Jesus (now that he has been identified as Jesus!) is known to be a Galilean from Nazareth (cf. 1:45; 6:42; 7:1, 40), while the Messiah is believed to be of unknown and mysterious origin. The persistent question Who is Jesus? is not yet settled but will dominate the temple discourse to the very end, as Jesus’ self-disclosure runs its course. Additional Notes 7:15 Such learning is lit. “know letters.” Though the phrase can refer to literacy, the reference ...
... Galilee now, i.e., this Galilean called Jesus is no true prophet. 8:1–11 This section (designated as 7:53–8:11 in standard editions of the Greek text and in most English versions) is not found in the earliest manuscripts, and therefore cannot be regarded as an original part of John’s Gospel. Most of the later manuscripts that do contain the passage place it here, but some place it in Luke’s Gospel (after 21:38), and some at the end of John’s Gospel; one manuscript places it after John 7:36, and in ...
... same time helping to introduce the latter. Much of the content of the section echoes things said earlier. It appears that the Gospel writer has gathered sayings of Jesus that were either handed down without reference to a particular time and place or else originally preserved in connection with one or more of the major discourses of this Gospel—for example, Jesus’ first Passover (3:11–36 or 5:19–47) or the temple discourse (7:14–8:59). If the Gospel writer was selective in assembling the material ...
... ouch hagnōs is good, but it goes better with preach Christ (cf. NIV: “the former preach Christ … from false motives”). Out of selfish ambition (Gk. ex eritheias, in antithesis to ex agapēs, from love, in v. 16). For eritheia, cf. 2:3. The word originally meant doing something for hire or wages, but came to denote a mercenary attitude, and in the NT is always used in a bad sense, of party spirit and the contention to which it leads. R. Jewett links the people referred to here with those described in ...
... Gk. ei kai katalabō, “if indeed I may lay hold of …”; the use of ei (“if”) to introduce a clause of purpose is similar to that in v. 11, “in hope that …” (Gk. ei pōs). The antecedent of for which is not expressed in the original, and is probably something like “the purpose,” in keeping with eph’ hō, “with a view to which.” Christ Jesus took hold of me: Gk. katelēmphthēn hypo Christou Iēsou, “I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus.” The translator must find an appropriate verb ...
... in v. 3), and he describes it primarily in terms of its appearance (ephanerōthē, twice in v. 2). He says it is concerning the Word (a masculine noun) of life. Then, in v. 2, he calls it the life, a feminine noun, and the eternal life. The original readers of the letter, who not only knew the prologue to the Gospel of John but were familiar with the author’s vocabulary and style, would have had no difficulty in identifying the subject as God’s Son, Jesus Christ (v. 3), the Word who “became flesh and ...
... received from God/Christ. This is one of those verses in which it is impossible to identify with certainty the person to whom the pronoun him refers, just as in 2:25 the he who is the source of the promise of eternal life is unclear. The origin of their anointing is divine. (2) The anointing remains in them. It is not an experience which comes and goes, but an endowment, an abiding reality that resides in their lives to empower them for occasions such as this one, i.e., to resist temptation and assertive ...
... beginning” (John 8:44), and just as the Elder’s opponents are “the children of the devil” (1 John 3:10). Cain had his origins in the evil one and was on his side. Secondly, he murdered his brother. He engaged in a violent act which caused his ... 2:23–24; 3:8, 23; 4:9–10, 14–15; 5:5, 9–13, 20; 2 John 3, 9). It signifies the Son’s divine origin and the continuing intimate union of the Father and Son whom he sent. The secessionist false teachers could not accept that the Christ, the Son of ...
... as leader for having decisively defeated his enemies. Jacob lauded Judah’s strength by comparing him with a lion, embellishing this image with three terms for this majestic animal: cub (gur), lion (’aryeh), and lioness (labi’; Num. 23:24; 24:9). This text is the origin of the messianic title the Lion of the tribe of Judah. Rulership would be the right of this tribe as the symbols, the scepter and the ruler’s staff, indicate. No one would be able to vie with him. His power would be over his brothers ...
... he had been making a persistent request), he didn’t stop reminding the Israelites of it: because of you the LORD was angry with me! The exclusion of Moses from entering the promised land figures so largely here, and was probably as much a surprise to the original readers as it is to us, that it invites some theological reflection. When one puts together all the passages that bear on Moses’ exclusion, they offer us at least two perspectives. On the one hand, our text here and the two closest to it in ...
... Jerusalem. That identification, according to von Rad, “was probably too hasty . . . The fact cannot indeed be disputed that later, during the course of Josiah’s reform, the law was applied to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, but this proves nothing at all about the origin of the requirement” (Deuteronomy, p. 94; cf. additional note). 12:6–12 The repeating sections (vv. 6–7 and 11–12) call for two things: (a) that the people should bring their offerings of all kinds to the sanctuary of Yahweh, and (b ...
... protecting the poor from exploitation and argues that this is a universal principle: “the common society of the human race demands that we should not seek to grow rich by the loss of others.” He shows that God was against any hidden additions to the original loan and then goes on, cautiously: “I have, then, admonished men that . . . all unjust gains are ever displeasing to God, whatever color we endeavor to give to it. But if we would form an equitable judgment, reason does not suffer us to admit that ...
... in v. 1). People thought that, along with that cycle of worship in the city of Zion to which Yahweh was committed, they were also protected by their link with the David to whom Yahweh was also committed. Isaiah turns that on its head. David had originally been against Jerusalem, and Yahweh joins him in that. “The inhabitants of the city will be reduced to grovelling ghosts of their former selves” (Clements, Isaiah 1–39, p. 236). They are as lost and as pathetic as the Jebusites who never dreamed that ...
... 34–35 followed by four chapters of prose stories about Hezekiah, the last of the kings of Isaiah’s own lifetime. One reason for this surprise is that they also appear in 2 Kings. As with 2:2–4, we do not know which is the more original version. But Isaiah is prominent in the stories and they incorporate some of his prophecies, so it is reasonable enough that they should appear in the book called Isaiah. There are several other locations within the book that would seem more natural than this one. Yet ...
... the logic here in chapter 52. Again, preceding sections have identified Yahweh’s servant. The Poet has told us about being appointed to fulfill the role, though in such a way as to make us also suspect that there is something interim about this arrangement. The original candidate still has the letter of appointment to the permanent post but may have forgotten where it was put. Once again, however, having told us who the servant is in 49:1–6 and 50:4–11, these chapters now tell us what is involved in ...
... in spite of all the effort expended on it, so far eludes any satisfactory explanation” (Ezekiel 1, p. 427). Leslie Allen (following a line of thought like that the NIV pursued) suggests that we find here an account of the rejection of kingship, originally written as a marginal note on 20:3, and mistakenly inserted into the text (Ezekiel 20–48 [WBC 29; Dallas: Word, 1990], p. 19). However, as Greenberg notes, “This would seem to be creating a text rather than interpreting it” (M. Greenberg, Ezekiel ...
... senses of this Greek word, the connection between the two sections (1:1–17, 18–25) is strengthened in that they both explicate Jesus’ “origins.” The first half of the chapter gives the genealogical and kingly origins of Jesus, specifically the genealogical line from Abraham through David. The latter half gives the more immediate familial origins, providing the connection between Joseph’s genealogy and his adoption of Jesus into his family line. pledged to be married. Jewish engagements were ...
... a distinction between Matthew’s preferred phrase, “the kingdom of heaven,” and his use of “the kingdom of God” (12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43), there is no substantial difference between these locutions, other than a possible emphasis on the heavenly origin of the kingdom.1 That the kingdom “has come near” (engiken) introduces at this early juncture the “already and not yet” of God’s reign in Matthew. This verb communicates the imminence of the kingdom as Jesus preaches and enacts the kingdom ...