... learn about Jesus. And his learning grows. The man often speaks of not knowing enough about Jesus. He says he doesn’t know where Jesus is. He doesn’t know if Jesus is a sinner. He doesn’t know who the Son of Man is. But throughout he’s understanding more about Jesus. He didn’t go looking for healing. Jesus simply seeks him out and heals him. Later Jesus comes looking for him again. So, it didn’t start with the blind man’s initiative. He was asking for coins, not miracles; but, he’s now got ...
... get to the last and the biggest question of all. IV. Why Should Every True Christ-Follower Be Baptized? There are two big mistakes people make about baptism. One mistake is to believe that baptism is of no importance at all. This is the mistake of people who understand, correctly, that baptism is not necessary to have a relationship with God. It doesn’t make you any more of a Christ-follower than if you are not baptized, so why be baptized? It is not a big deal. The other mistake is made by people who say ...
... require that God take the initiative, and it will demand that mercy trump judgment in order to bring home the bride. When will this all take place? On the “Day of the Lord,” of course. Still, only from our New Testament perspective do we understand two things that Jeremiah could not see at the time. First, Jesus brought the “Day of the Lord” in his arrival as the incarnate deity, the Messiah of the nations. Second, Jesus split the “Day of the Lord” into two parts, inaugurating the blessings of ...
... we should be able thus to offer willingly? For all things come from you, and of your own have we given you”. (I Chronicles 29:14, ESV) Let that one statement sink into your mind and let what has happened to this point get into your heart. If you really understand it then you will remember the following things about not only your money, but about you. I. God Owns Everything - I Own Nothing All of us have things, but none of us own things. What I have is His. I want you to say three words right now out loud ...
... the way back to that one act of God in the beginning when He created Adam and then Eve – male and then female. With that understanding, the boy that grew up to be a man and the girl that grew up to be a woman are to leave their mother and their ... A parent and a child are two. A brother and a sister are two, but a husband and a wife are one. This is so important to understand that Jesus repeats this again. “So they are no longer two but one flesh.” (Matthew 19:6, ESV) Don’t miss this! When God sees a ...
... into the present from an ancient era. "So much has changed. I hardly recognize the world in which I live," he laments. "When I walk the aisles of an electronics store I am bewildered by the products. Entire generations of technology come and go before I understand what it is, how it works, or why I might want to buy it. I tell my grandchildren that, technologically speaking, I am a middle twentieth-century kind of guy trapped in the twenty-first century. “I was raised to 'Buy American Made’” he tells ...
... of the phrase “set me apart from birth” (hoaphorisas me ek koilias mētros mou) can be read to express the idea that the setting apart was from the time when Paul was conceived in his mother’s womb. This concept was part of prophetic self-understanding (cf. Jer. 1:5). The idea that a person or place could be set apart by God for a special purpose is intrinsic to the Jewish religious mind. The prophets, for instance, were understood to be specially designated by God (Deut. 18:15) so that they could ...
... the law of Moses, (b) the covenant between Adam and the devil, (c) a certificate of debt, such as an I.O.U., from mankind to God, (d) a heavenly book on which God recorded human sins, or (e) Christ himself. A significant number of interpreters understand this either to be a reference to the Jewish law—thus God’s regulations—or to the man-made traditions of the false teachers that resulted in transgressions. In either case, human beings were unable to keep to these precepts, so these stood as a written ...
... presents throughout the book. Christ is the telos, the goal and ultimate meaning of all that preceded. But in what sense was the writer, or any of the writers of the NT for that matter, justified in referring to his time as the last days? The key to understanding this kind of statement (see also 4:3; 6:5; 9:26; 12:22ff.), is found in the theological ultimacy of Christ. There is no way our writer can have recognized the reality of Jesus Christ—who he is and what he has done—and not have confessed ...
... (cf. “first” here and in vv. 6 and 8; and “second” or “inner” in v. 7); NIV translates, in keeping with Exodus, first room and in vv. 6–7 “inner room” and “outer room.” It is unlikely, however, that the writer means us to understand the first as the earthly and the second as the heavenly, as did some in Hellenistic Judaism, since for him the entire Mosaic setting represents the earthly copy of a greater reality. He may mean nothing more than “outer” and “inner” in the way that ...
... in the community of 4:1–12. Just as there were two births, two inspirations, in 1:12–18, so there are two “wisdoms,” two Spirits, here. 3:13 James has already argued for simple, sincere speech; now he makes an appeal. Who is wise and understanding among you? At one level this is a question that simply asks if someone fits the description, but at a deeper level one remembers that 1 Corinthians 1–3 describes a church in which rival teachers claimed superior wisdom, and perhaps that was happening in ...
... eilikrinēs in Phil. 1:10 to describe the purity required of believers on the day of Christ (the corresponding noun appears in 1 Cor. 5:8; 2 Cor. 1:12; 2:17). The precisely opposite notion occurs in Eph. 4:18, “darkened in their understanding (dianoia).” Plato uses Peter’s phrase to mean pure reason, i.e., thinking unaffected by the senses. But in Christian writings dianoia usually does not refer to the mind in the intellectual sense but to the faculty of spiritual discernment (Eph. 4:18; Col. 1 ...
... brilliant judge but as the most heartless and barbaric of all Israel’s judges. It is difficult to pause and look at this passage, more so to scrutinize it. Would that it were not in the Bible. But it is in the Bible, and we must seek to understand its meaning and its role in the overall story of God’s people. Truly these events mark a very low point in Israel’s history, demonstrating that the downward spiral toward chaos has spun considerably closer to its conclusion. 11:29–31 The passage opens on a ...
... he hinted that he and the Lord were one and the same, but Manoah did not get the hint, as the narrative intrusion (v. 16b) informs us. Instead he asked the man/angel his name, to which he responded, Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding (v. 18). Manoah sacrificed the offering, and the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame. At this, husband and wife fell with their faces to the ground (v. 20), an appropriate response to the wholly otherness of the Lord. 13:24–25 The angel’s promise was ...
... definition of All-Israel is not a political one. e. He also emphasizes the close connection between All-Israel and the cultic community (particularly the Levite lineage), thereby interpreting All-Israel first and foremost as a cultic community. The self-understanding of All-Israel is therefore closely connected to Jerusalem, and particularly to the temple in Jerusalem. f. Does all this have any theological bearing? It might be clear enough to the reader that these genealogies could have significance from a ...
... 3:7–11. Other uses of the question “Who is this?” in the Song (6:10 and 8:5) call for the answer “the central woman.” If the NIV’s ascription of the line to her is correct (which is not certain), it would preclude this understanding here. Perhaps it is appropriate that the first instance of “who is this?” leaves many interpreters asking the same question. 3:7–11 This segment describes an item connected with Solomon, perhaps a couch or litter (NIV carriage). Most interpreters take 3:7 as a ...
... that is that such action on Yahweh’s part is an expression of Yahweh’s moral nature (v. 13a). Again Habakkuk picks up his own language from earlier: look on and tolerate are the verbs he used in verse 3 (where he declared that he could not understand how Yahweh could make him look at injustice or how Yahweh can tolerate wrong) and the verbs that Yahweh used in verse 5. Verses 5–11 have confirmed that Your eyes are too pure for that; you cannot tolerate wrong (raʿ, a different, more general word for ...
... that the presence of the unseen God among us is the result of our love for one another. The second result of love among Christians is that God’s love is made complete among us. The same expression was used in 2:5, and we face the same problem in understanding exactly what the author meant. Does his love (hē agapē autou, lit., “the love of him”) mean God’s love for us, our love for God, or God’s kind of love? In 2:5 the last fits the context best. Here God’s love for the community has been ...
... and leḇ, “inward being” and “heart.” “We do have dianoia. Jesus gave it to us,” the Elder assures his readers, much as he says in 2:20: “You have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know” (cf. 2:26–27). The purpose of this understanding is experiential and christological: that we may know—in a continuing and progressive way (Westcott, Epistles, p. 196)—him who is true. Jesus enabled his followers to know God (John 1:14, 18; 14:6–11; 17:2–3, 6, 26; cf. John 8:32; 10:38 ...
... tells us that verses 1–2 are not an integral part of the first day of creation (vv. 3–5). That is, these first two verses stand apart from the report of what God did on the first day of creation. A third view, the initial chaos theory, understands verse 2 to describe the raw material that came into existence as a result of God’s initial creative act reported in verse 1. That is, after making the raw materials, God went about ordering the cosmos from these raw materials as recounted in verses 3–31 ...
... a special way (2:21). God is thus ominously present in the thick, dreadful darkness. On this momentous occasion Yahweh outlined for Abram the course of events his seed would meet before taking possession of the promised land. Abram was able to understand what Yahweh was foretelling because of his recent experience in Egypt (12:10–20). That experience served as a pattern for the events God was talking about. His descendants would become strangers, resident aliens, in a foreign country. There they would be ...
... s own eyes, and hence ties in with the similar verdict of Jesus on such sin (cf. Matt. 12:22–32). The blotting out of his name and the threat that God will single him out (lit. “separate him”) are clear evidence that the OT has as sharp an understanding of individual accountability before God as any NT text. To be sure, God deals with the nation as a whole, in blessing and in judgment. But no individual is lost to God’s view in either event. 29:22–29 An open stage. “A city set on a hill cannot ...
... measure. The exiles have not gone away from the Lord, as Jerusalem’s inhabitants claim. Instead, the Lord has gone away from Jerusalem. But what does it mean that the Lord has become a sanctuary in small measure for the exiles? How can the exiles understand the presence of the Lord if it is unmediated by the temple with its sacred rites and rituals? At least in part, the answer would appear to be that Ezekiel the priest has himself become an intermediary between God and God’s people. Several features ...
... the violence and bloodshed Jehoahaz committed: He learned to tear the prey and he devoured men (v. 3; compare 11:6–7). 2 Kings 23:32 likewise says that Jehoahaz “did evil in the eyes of the LORD, just as his fathers had done,” and if we understand the oracle in Jeremiah 22:1–5 to refer to Shallum, then either the prophet or the editors of his book also implicitly accuse this king of violence and bloodshed. The identity of the second lion, hunted down, caged and taken to Babylon (vv. 5–9), is less ...
... ’s exaltation, but to its shame: “Then you will remember your evil ways and wicked deeds, and you will loathe yourselves for your sins and detestable practices. . . . Be ashamed and disgraced for your conduct, O house of Israel!” (vv. 31–32). How are we to understand this bleak, cold, loveless view of Israel’s future and of Israel’s God? It is no help to say that these verses are likely from an editor: first, because they are nonetheless a part of the traditional Hebrew text of our Old Testament ...