... same (lit., “likewise”) are reminiscent not only of the feeding of the five thousand but of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (e.g., Mark 14:22–23; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:23–25). It is doubtful, however, that the Lord’s Supper is specifically in view in a passage that does not mention the cup at all. Probably an agapē or fellowship meal in a more general sense is intended (cf., e.g., 13:1–5, 21–30).
... vision of Christ/God, the result of which will be to become like him, does not delay the process of transformation but purifies himself or herself now. Becoming like Christ/God begins now (note the ongoing present action of the verb). The change in view is holistic: moral, spiritual, attitudinal, and behavioral. The standard or model is Christ (as he is pure; cf. 3:5), or perhaps more accurately, in the light of the Christology of the Johannine writings, the model is God as revealed in the person, teaching ...
... ? See E. Käsemann, “Ketzer und Zeuge,” ZThK 48 (1951), pp. 292–311. This goes beyond the evidence of this epistle and reads into the Johannine historical situation the polity of the later patristic era. A masterful summary of the various scholarly views on the relation between the Elder and Diotrephes is found in Brown, Epistles, pp. 727–39. Exhortation and the Example of Demetrius The writer turns from the negative example of Diotrephes to the positive example of Demetrius. Gaius is to imitate the ...
... about parents, and these first humans had no parents. In joining with a woman, a man will leave his parents. Some interpreters have taken this extraordinary wording as assuming a matriarchal order, but the context does not sustain this view. Consequently, this wording is a shocking rhetorical device that communicates how radically marriage alters a son’s authority lines, especially in a patriarchal family. In antiquity parents arranged marriages at significant financial cost, and the groom’s parents ...
... had the name Nimmuri (fourteenth century B.C.). On one hunting expedition this pharaoh claimed to capture 102 lions. Since Nimrod is tied to Mesopotamia, Cush is more likely the city Kish, which in Mesopotamian tradition was the center of kingship after the flood. Another view links Cush with the Kassite rulers in Babylon in the second half of the second millennium B.C. Or Nimrod may have been a god, possibly Ninurta, the war god and the god of the hunt. 10:11–12 Rehoboth Ir, which means “city squares ...
... support the position that all languages come from a common source. Hamilton (Genesis: Chapters 1–17, p. 350) answers this difficulty with a different interpretation of “one language” in this text. He supposes that the inhabitants of Shinar spoke a lingua franca. This view also addresses the conflict between the way this account is usually understood and the references to local languages in the Table of Nations (10:5, 20, 31). However, there is no signal in the text to require taking chs. 10 and 11 as ...
... on the main highway from Ur to Canaan. Also, it helps deal with the problem that if Abram came from southern Mesopotamia his journey was in the opposite direction of the Amorite migration at the end of the third millennium B.C. This alternative view has not won wide acceptance. At present the information from that time is too scarce to decide conclusively which site is the most likely home of Abram. 11:31 In Akk. Haran means “route, journey, caravan.” Haran was an important trading center where Amorite ...
... :16 and Ps. 73:11 it stands parallel to El). In the Karatepe inscription, El is the god of earth while Baal is the god of heaven. Thus identifying El Elyon as the God of heaven and earth is a singular statement, indicating that Melchizedek’s view of God transcended that of his neighbors. Even though Melchizedek came from Canaanite culture, in God’s merciful providence Melchizedek had come to realize that there is one supreme God. Abram used this name after the name Yahweh (v. 22). In the OT, Yahweh Most ...
... of Sodom. Faced with a great moral dilemma, Lot placed the protection of his guests above the honor of his daughters; the code of hospitality motivated him to think first of these guests. Unfortunately, Lot was willing to concede the integrity of his own daughters. He viewed his daughters as a means of his own advancement, as is evident in his pledging them to citizens of Sodom. Thus he had moved far from the standard God desired. What other course Lot could have taken is a matter for conjecture. 19:9 The ...
... . The theophoric element may be suppressed; its full form is then “Jacob-El,” i.e., “may El protect him” (Deut. 33:28). Another suggestion is that it is a denominative of the Hb. ’qb (“heel”), meaning “strike the heel” (LXX). Yet another view is that it means “finagle,” based on the Arab. root meaning “follow at the heel or footsteps” to “take the place of another by deception” (W. D. Whitt, “The Jacob Traditions in Hosea and Their Relation to Genesis,” ZAW 103 [1991], pp ...
... it. Above it stood Yahweh, who identified himself to Jacob as Yahweh, the God of his father Abraham and the God of Isaac. God grounded this self-identification in relationship to those who had followed him, not in terms of this place’s being holy. In the view of the ancients, places where God was thought to have appeared provided direct access to the heavenly realm. Rebekah most likely went to such a place in order to receive a word from God as to why the children in her womb were struggling so fiercely ...
... her son’s mandrakes. Jacob obliged her. Although Rachel had acquired an aphrodisiac from her sister, it was Leah who became pregnant. Refusing to be manipulated, God opened Leah’s womb, not Rachel’s. She named her fifth child Issachar, “hired.” In her view God had rewarded her. Afterward she bore another son and named him Zebulun. The meaning of this name is uncertain; it is apparently related by sound to zbd (“endure”). Leah thereby praised God for giving her a precious gift and expressed her ...
... the place El Bethel, literally “the God of the house of God,” in remembrance of God’s self-revealation to Jacob when he was fleeing from Esau. This name signals that Jacob focused on the God who had revealed himself to him rather than viewing the place as inherently holy. Jacob’s understanding of God was deepening. 35:8 At this point the narrative reports that Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died and was buried under the oak. They called that place Allon Bacuth, meaning “the oak of weeping,” a ...
... some family history for his two grandsons. 48:8–9 Israel saw the sons of Joseph and asked who they were. This question disrupts the flow of the narrative. While it might be evidence that two accounts of this blessing were blended, another view takes the question as serving a legal purpose: the precise identification of the two children standing before Israel as Joseph’s. Joseph’s father is called Israel here since Joseph’s sons were being numbered among the tribes of Israel. Joseph identified his ...
... rendering coincides with the animal metaphors used for other tribes. Nevertheless, in the OT the vine serves several times as a metaphor for the settlement of Israel in the land (e.g., Ps. 80:8–11). This reading is supported by Gk. and Tg. Both views have weaknesses; so given the obscurity of the Hb., it is better to follow the ancient tradition. Joseph’s story may serve as a basis for the blessing. He began with abundance (v. 22), suffered great hardship as a prisoner and servant (v. 23), maintained ...
... for good (see 45:5–8). Throughout the ordeal God had led him and protected him, elevating him to leadership in the Egyptian government at a crucial time, thereby enabling him to save their lives and those of numerous peoples throughout that region. This view of divine providence accords with the teaching of wisdom literature. Humans make plans, but God determines the outcome (Prov. 16:9; 19:21). As God directs the course of human affairs, he brings good outcomes out of acts of evil. God can handle every ...
50:22–23 Joseph lived a hundred and ten years. For the Egyptians, this age symbolized a long and full life. Joseph saw his grandchildren to the third and fourth generation. The ancients viewed such a privilege as the reward for righteousness. 50:24–25 Before his death Joseph wished to give his extended family a word of promise that would sustain and guide them as long as they remained in Egypt. He reiterated the promise that God would surely bring them out of ...
... ” (D. Christensen, Deuteronomy, p. 9). He was also to expound the law (cf. Deut. 27:8 and Hab. 2:2). Deuteronomy is thus “preached law”—that is, law explained with prophetic urgency, divine authority, and a preacher’s clarity. Whatever one’s view of the authorship of the book, it was given this introduction in order to stress its abiding relevance to all Israel. This is a frequent phrase in Deuteronomy, occurring in the first verse of the book (referring to Moses’ words), in the last ...
... way to uphold God’s holiness among them (Num.20:12). So was it Moses’ own fault or was he the victim of the people’s rebellion? Probably we should not try to separate the two perspectives so rigidly. Least helpful of all, in my view, is to try to solve the problem on source critical grounds by suggesting that in the original Deuteronomic account Moses was entirely innocent but suffered with and for the people, and that it is only the priestly writer, under the alleged influence of Ezekiel 18 ...
... as the agent of divine judgment on another nation through war, for the restraining of evil (“defending the bad against the worse,” as it has been called) or the relative (and usually highly ambiguous) righting of wrongs. But even where such a view is taken of a particular conflict, our text warns against the facile assumption that righteousness adorns the victorious nation or nations. Since the Bible so clearly shows that God can use the wicked to punish the wicked, it follows that a technically “just ...
... is “the highest God and supreme Lord.” Whatever other spiritual realities exist, they are subject to Yahweh. Again the question of monotheism arises, and again it seems inadequate to say, as some commentators do, that only a relative mono-Yahwism is in view. For the text does not say merely that Yahweh is the only God for Israel (while allowing for the legitimate jurisdiction of other national deities), but affirms that Yahweh is the supreme God over all. Yahweh’s sovereignty is not just covenantal ...
... life, including contingent factors like climate and fertility. God’s historical justice and God’s sovereign providence are the non-negotiable factors. 11:18–21 The importance of regular inculcation of the law (cf. 6:6–9) takes on a new urgency in view of the preceding warnings. 11:22–25 Before the Israelites could begin to enjoy agricultural success in the land, they had to have military success so as to actually settle there. These verses hang Israel’s possession of the land upon the condition ...
... would be used to repay the loan. As a last resort they would have been human pledges—i.e., dependents of the debtor, working for the creditor to pay off the debt (cf. Neh. 5:1–5), but it is probably primarily material pledges that are in view. It is still debated whether the release of the pledge in the seventh year meant a suspension of repayment in that year or a total cancellation of the debt itself. It may originally have been the former, but later Jewish tradition certainly took it in the latter ...
... :5–10 These words were first described as an ancient Israelite “credo” by von Rad, who also proposed that the whole Sinai tradition (which is not explicitly mentioned here) was originally separate from this historical land-gift tradition (cf. “Problem”). His views have received considerable criticism and must be regarded as broadly rejected with regard to the separation of Sinai from the historical tradition. But, it is still plausible to see in Deut. 26:5–10 (and 6:21–23) a succinct statement ...
... formula” is not used here, the chapter obviously does not intend that Mt. Ebal was that place. But then, if it was not, we have an exception to the alleged “rule” that no other sanctuaries were to be allowed—an exception that, in view of its significant position in the book, raises questions about the assumption that Deut. in its origins was so fundamentally intended to achieve centralization. 27:15–26 On the relation of these curses to Israel’s earliest law, and especially the “prohibitives ...