... a time for graciousness, not revenge. He publicly ascribes the victory to God. Within this chapter the writers show Saul as the right man for the job, capable of acting as God’s representative. There is no indication of Saul’s later character problems. 11:14–15 After he had proved himself in battle, it was appropriate that Saul’s reign should be reaffirmed. This multistage appointment, beginning with a private anointing that was followed by public affirmation, then by proof that the appointee was ...
... a time for graciousness, not revenge. He publicly ascribes the victory to God. Within this chapter the writers show Saul as the right man for the job, capable of acting as God’s representative. There is no indication of Saul’s later character problems. 11:14–15 After he had proved himself in battle, it was appropriate that Saul’s reign should be reaffirmed. This multistage appointment, beginning with a private anointing that was followed by public affirmation, then by proof that the appointee was ...
... such a prospect. But Samuel’s raising the possibility and then taking it away must have disturbed the king, who still had a job to do. The prospect of an appointed though unknown successor would have only added to Saul’s problems. The tortured character that we see in later chapters perhaps owes something to this encounter with Samuel. 13:15–22 The text does not specify whether Samuel made the proper offerings and gave his blessing to the Israelite forces. But the brief, bleak statement that Samuel ...
... : A Literary Critical Analysis of 2 Samuel 1–8,” in Telling Queen Michal’s Story: An Experiment in Comparative Interpretation [ed. D. J. A. Clines and T. C. Eskenazi; JSOTSup 119; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991], pp. 97–120). He concludes that David’s character is “flawed but favoured” and the Michal is “ever victimized but never vindicated.” R. B. Lawton (“1 Samuel 18: David, Merob and Michal,” CBQ 51 [1989]: pp. 423–25) suggests that the two sisters being offered to David sets up a ...
... ) shows that the writers were well aware of the irony of this parallel. Only one of the priests, Ahimelech’s son Abiathar, escapes to the relative safety of David’s camp. David’s reaction to Abiathar’s news ties in with the ongoing portrait of his character in two ways. It presents us on the one hand with his inability to work through the consequences of any action he might take or to think through the relevance of information with which he has been provided. On the other hand there is a willingness ...
... ) shows that the writers were well aware of the irony of this parallel. Only one of the priests, Ahimelech’s son Abiathar, escapes to the relative safety of David’s camp. David’s reaction to Abiathar’s news ties in with the ongoing portrait of his character in two ways. It presents us on the one hand with his inability to work through the consequences of any action he might take or to think through the relevance of information with which he has been provided. On the other hand there is a willingness ...
... ) shows that the writers were well aware of the irony of this parallel. Only one of the priests, Ahimelech’s son Abiathar, escapes to the relative safety of David’s camp. David’s reaction to Abiathar’s news ties in with the ongoing portrait of his character in two ways. It presents us on the one hand with his inability to work through the consequences of any action he might take or to think through the relevance of information with which he has been provided. On the other hand there is a willingness ...
... was the choice of the people as far as Judah was concerned. 2:4b–7 Having returned to Judah, David was able to obtain full details of what had happened to Saul and his army. The message sent to Jabesh Gilead reflects the two aspects of David’s character that made him such a good king. On the one hand, his gratitude to them for what they had done for Saul was sincere. He was genuinely moved by their bravery and their kindness. His blessing and his assertions of favor toward them were unfeigned. On the ...
... could be seen as fitting this story. We are told that he burned with anger. He made a legal pronouncement that a man who did such a thing deserve[d] to die and should be made to pay substantial compensation. It says much for David’s character and his basic sense of justice that his outrage remained, even when he came to realize that the story was about himself. 12:7–9 Nathan’s statement, You are the man! must have shocked David. Surely he had never done anything vaguely resembling that. But Nathan ...
... of stones piled in the forest, this monument was all that remained to mark Absalom’s potential. David Mourns 18:19–33 Another vivid account tells how the news of Absalom’s death reached David. Joab shows again how well he understood David’s character, how well he could predict David’s reactions, and how skillfully he could manipulate the presentation of news to further his own ends. Ahimaaz wanted to take the news of victory to David. Joab knew that however glad David was of victory, the messenger ...
... narratives that make up these final chapters of 2 Samuel could seem an anticlimax after the exciting stories of the earlier court narratives. However, the psalm of chapter 22 and the oracle of 23:1–7 leave the reader with a strong sense of the character and purposes of the God of Israel. In addition, this final story reemphasizes the nature of human perfidy and God’s faithfulness and mercy. It also provides a context for the continuing story as recorded in 1 and 2 Kings. God still has a purpose ...
... of the horn with “a mouth that spoke boastfully” (7:8) and that “will speak against the Most High” (7:25). Although we do not have specific examples of Antiochus’s blasphemies from history, this claim is believable, knowing this king’s character. In Hebrew, “x of x” indicates the superlative, as in “Song of Songs” (Song 1:1), which is “the greatest song”; “holy of holies” or “the Most Holy Place” (Exod. 26:33, 34); and “vanity of vanities,” which means “most vain ...
... in the oath, namely, the cryptic expression “a time, times and half a time” (12:7). In other words, he is presented as not fully grasping what that means or how it will actually be played out in history. Finally, it could be that the character Daniel simply wants to know what will happen next in God’s eschatological timetable. He fathoms what is to come from the time of Persia up to “the end”: the death of Antiochus IV, the victory of Michael, the resurrection, and the judgment. However, being ...
... overcomes such prejudices against Christianity and believes in Jesus. Nathanael, Jesus declares, is a true Israelite, in whom there is nothing false (v. 47). Jesus shows here, even more clearly than in his renaming of Simon, a supernatural insight into people’s character (cf. 2:25). He is apparently referring to the patriarch Jacob, who practiced deception until he met God in the person of an angel and had his name changed to “Israel” (Gen. 32:28). Nathanael is an Israelite worthy of that name. Jesus ...
... who “finds” the man nearby in the temple area and speaks to him (v. 14a). The initiative throughout belongs to Jesus. His identity, his goings and comings, are known only to those to whom he discloses himself (cf. 9:35–37). Yet he knows the character and circumstances of the man he has just healed. Echoing the synoptic story of the paralytic, in which healing and the forgiveness of sins are virtually equated (Mark 2:5–11), Jesus warns the man to stop sinning or something worse may happen to you ...
... in verses 33–34. The guards can only carry their bafflement back to the religious authorities who sent them. From verse 47 at least through 8:20, the Pharisees move center stage. Jesus will confront them directly, but first their attitudes and their character will be demonstrated. It is probably to be assumed that they speak for the chief priests as well as themselves. They are intensely conscious of their own status, in contrast to that of the crowd, which knows nothing of the law—there is ...
... you is going to betray me. The narrator has kept this betrayal ever before the eyes of his readers (cf. 6:64, 71; 12:4, 6; 13:11), but to the disciples it comes as a shock: Who can the traitor be? (v. 22). At this tense moment a new character comes into the story, a disciple never identified by name, but only as the disciple whom Jesus loved (v. 23; cf. 19:26–27; 20:2–8; 21:7, 20–24). Just as the identity of all the disciples rests on the fact that Jesus “showed them the full extent ...
... solemnity here that was not present before. Realizing that the Jewish authorities have forced him to accede to their demands, Pilate takes his revenge. By sitting in the judge’s seat, he gives to the announcement Here is your king a ceremonial and quasi-official character. The ultimate insult he can hurl at the Jews is that this truly is their king, the one they deserve and the only one they will ever have. His insult finds its mark, for it draws from them in angry response the ultimate blasphemy of ...
... as Pilate was concerned, the granting of permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take charge of Jesus’ body was simply an extension of the permission he had already given to the Jews to remove the three bodies from Golgotha (v. 31). Joseph of Arimathea is a new character in the story but is mentioned in every Gospel and identified in Mark and Luke as a member of the Jewish ruling Council. It is not surprising that he appears here in the company of Nicodemus (v. 39), introduced in chapter 3 as “a member of ...
... as Pilate was concerned, the granting of permission to Joseph of Arimathea to take charge of Jesus’ body was simply an extension of the permission he had already given to the Jews to remove the three bodies from Golgotha (v. 31). Joseph of Arimathea is a new character in the story but is mentioned in every Gospel and identified in Mark and Luke as a member of the Jewish ruling Council. It is not surprising that he appears here in the company of Nicodemus (v. 39), introduced in chapter 3 as “a member of ...
... the whole final section of the apostle’s defense. Paul desperately wants to normalize his relations with the Corinthians; therefore, he tries defensively to remove the stones of stumbling that have gotten in the way of complete reconciliation. Lingering doubts about his character and conduct are at issue. Paul claims to have wronged no one, using the same verb as in 7:12, where he refers to the wrong he suffered from a Corinthian (probably by a severe attack on his apostleship). Interestingly enough ...
... ), and in obedience he “went” (12:4). 11:27–28 This is the account (toledoth)of Terah. Even though Terah plays no role in the following episodes, the narrator of Genesis traditionally introduces a major section with the genealogy of the main character, beginning with that person’s father. This account also contains essential information for understanding what follows. The mention of the death of Haran, Lot’s father, prepares the reader to understand why Abram takes Lot under his care (12:4). 11:29 ...
... oppression. If the wickedness was as great as the outcry, he would have to wipe out these cities. God’s disposition in this account indicates that judgment is never light or quick, but occurs only after careful deliberation and after being convinced of the character of the people or place to be judged. 18:22–26 At this point two of the messengers continued on to Sodom, while Abraham remained standing before Yahweh. Yahweh waited for Abraham to speak. Abraham did not accept Yahweh’s words. With humble ...
... ’s youth. Taking advantage of the moment, Joseph heaped shame on them by asking why they had dared to do such a wrong in light of his ability to find things out by divination. The atmosphere was ripe for his discovering the true character of his brothers and the sincerity of their acceptance of Benjamin. Would they heap blame for their present precarious fate on another son of Rachel? Or would they defend Benjamin, thereby giving convincing proof that they had changed? Having separated Benjamin from his ...
... a special purpose. In any case, it was the Lord who conferred the change in status from common to holy. The Lord declared the fragrant anointing oil holy. It was the visible and fragrant means by which God conferred holiness on other objects and people. It had a sacramental character, that is, God acted through it. Additional Note 30:23 A shekel varied in weight. The OT shekel may have been 11.4 g./.4 oz. The “sanctuary shekel” in v. 13 may have been closer to 10 g. The NT shekel was 14.5 g./.5 oz. They ...