... does his will (v. 31). The former blind man attributes his healing to God, with Jesus in the role of intercessor asking God to act. Yet at the same time he can say without hesitation that Jesus cured his blindness (vv. 30, 32). His view of miracles coincides perfectly with that of the Gospel writer and of Jesus as portrayed in this Gospel (cf. 11:41–42). Jesus’ works are the works of God (cf. v. 4; 4:34). One cannot assign some miracles to the Father and others to the Son; all that happens redemptively ...
... at all, but to rest on the Aramaic expressions ar nāšb (indefinite, “a son of man” or “a man”) or bar nāšā’ (definite, “the son of man” or “that man”), used virtually as pronouns (e.g., “someone” or “a certain one”). The present narrative makes perfect sense in light of this background. Jesus asks, “Do you believe in that man [i.e., the man who restored your sight]?” The reply is, Who is he, sir?… Tell me so that I may believe in him (v. 36). As far as we know, the man ...
... traveling at night. The riddle is an elaborate way of saying what has been said several times before, that Jesus’ hour (i.e., the hour of his death) has not yet come (cf. 2:4; 7:30; 8:20; cf. 7:6, 39) and that until it comes he is perfectly safe. Yet the solemn manner in which Jesus makes this point suggests to the reader that the twelve hours of daylight are running out and the time of darkness is near (cf. 9:4–5). When that hour is announced, therefore (12:23, 27, 35; 13:1), the announcement comes ...
... 36. In the larger context, the Isaiah quotation recalls Jesus’ pronouncement of judgment on the Pharisees in 9:39–41. His very coming into the world has the purpose of blinding as well as giving sight, and his verdict against the Pharisees coincides perfectly with the narrator’s verdict in the present passage against all who rejected Jesus’ message. But never in this Gospel does the notion of God’s choice or nonchoice of individuals for eternal life foreclose an appeal to their free will. Election ...
... a mission to the world after Jesus’ departure (cf. 17:11). He now showed them the full extent of his love. Some translations tend to connect this statement with the footwashing in particular (e.g., NIV; BDF par. 207[3]: “he gave them the perfect love-token”), but it is more likely that the phrase, the full extent (Gr.: eis telos) has a temporal as well as a qualitative sense, and that the statement points beyond the footwashing to what the footwashing itself represents, Jesus’ death on the cross ...
... would be glad that I am going to the Father (v. 28), especially in view of the fact that he has just defined the world as those who do not love Jesus (v. 24). Until the disciples have overcome their grief and fear, they cannot be said to love Jesus perfectly (cf. 1 John 4:18), and to that degree they are still on the same footing as the world. Here for the first time in the discourse is the implicit recognition of a crisis to come that will test the faith and love of the disciples. It is a crisis ...
... too may be truly sanctified (v. 19) that all of them may be one … just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us (v. 21a) that they may be one as we are one (v. 22b) “that they may be perfected into one” (NIV: may they, v. 23a) It is not sufficient to say merely that the disciples are “saved” or receive “eternal life” through Jesus’ death—although that is true. Their salvation is described here in a particular way. They are not only a “saved” but a “saving” community ...
... is quoted here, two distinct things are intended, and a distinct fulfillment is found for each: They divided my garments among them … (fulfilled in v. 23a), and cast lots for my clothing (fulfilled in vv. 23b–24). Though the narrator understands perfectly well the nature of poetic parallelism, he takes the opportunity (as any rabbinic Jewish interpreter would do) to extract separate meaning from each part if it fits the historical information he is trying to explain. The same interpretive technique is ...
... (v. 18): When you were younger you dressed yourself when you are old you will stretch out your hands and someone else will dress you and went where you wanted and lead you where you do not want to go The contrast seems perfect except for the expression you will stretch out your hands, which has no precise equivalent in the “youth” column. It appears to be an old man’s gesture of helplessness or resignation preliminary to receiving assistance from others—at the cost, inevitably, of personal ...
... law (cf. A. A. T. Ehrhardt, “Jesus Christ and Alexander the Great,” in The Framework of the New Testament Stories, pp. 37–43). But if this had been the sense intended here, it could easily have been expressed by harpagma, which was a perfectly familiar word—it occurs seventeen times in LXX, whereas harpagmos occurs only here in the Greek Bible, and very rarely elsewhere in Greek literature. A powerful argument for maintaining the active force proper to harpagmos is presented by C. F. D. Moule (in W ...
... to Paul and to the Philippians) for anyone else to undertake on Paul’s behalf a forty days’ journey on foot to Philippi and another forty days’ journey back. See G. B. Caird (ad loc.). 2:24 I am confident in the Lord: Gk. pepoitha … en kyriō. Cf. the perfect participle pepoithōs in 1:6, 14, 25. For in the Lord cf. 1:14 and additional note on that verse. That I myself will come soon: according to G. B. Caird, “he cannot have had much confidence in his release, or would not have needed to send ...
... addressed to an individual by name (e. g., a community leader or one of the Philippian “firstfruits”); this individual would then be the loyal yokefellow (Paul and the Gnostics, pp. 76, 77). It is best to recognize that the identity of the loyal yokefellow was perfectly well known to the Philippian church but can only be guessed at by us. Repeated Call to Rejoice Paul repeats and emphasizes the exhortation of 3:1. 4:4 The adverb always makes it plain that this is no mere formula of farewell; the verb ...
... follow (2:7; 2 John 5–6), a message (“what you have heard,” 2:24) to heed and to allow to abide in them (1 John 3:11), and the “fathers” have known him who is from the beginning (2:13–14). Four verbs in the perfect and aorist tenses and two nouns referring to parts of the body emphasize as concretely as possible the physicality of the Word of life: heard, … seen with our eyes, … looked at, … our hands have touched. The polemical context of these assertions is the denial of the incarnation ...
... the elements of life and death, love and hate, and God and Satan. You know implies that this is what the readers had been taught as a part of common early Christian ethical tradition (cf. Matt. 15:19; Gal. 5:19–21; Rev. 21:8, 27). 3:16 The perfect tense of the Greek verb egnōkamen (NIV, we know) implies knowledge based on experience. On Jesus as a pattern for Christian conduct, see, e.g., Matt. 11:29 (“learn from me”); Mark 10:42–45 (service); John 13:14–17 (foot-washing), 34 (love); Phil. 2:5 ...
... in any way by it. God blessed the seventh day, setting it apart from all other days by making it holy. From the premise that seven units symbolize wholeness or completeness, God’s sanctifying the seventh day certified that the creation was finished and perfect. In doing this God was expressing divine sovereignty over time. God separated time into ordinary time and holy time, for God did not want humans to become slaves to endless work. So humans are to rest one day in every seven in order to praise ...
... is a living creature (nepesh khayyah). The NIV obscures this connection since it has “being” for the man (v. 7) and “creature” for the animals. In addition, the NIV understands that the animals already existed by translating the verb as a past perfect, had formed. Usually this type of Hebrew verb describes consecutive action in a narrative. Then the sense is that, after making this assessment about the man, God proceeded to form the animals. God then brought the animals to the man, empowering him ...
... marriage defined as incestuous in the law (Lev. 18:9, 11)? In answer to this last problem, God had not revealed to Abram the standards of the covenant. Moreover, Abram’s failures, including this one, remind us that Abram was a real person, not a perfect, ideal character such as is found in heroic tales. At times he displayed great courage and acted in bold faith; at other times he succumbed to fear and acted in a weak, self-serving manner. While his failures warn us against stumbling, his journey informs ...
... always being in God’s presence and was to be blameless (tamim). When used with animals (Lev. 1:3, 10) tamim means “without blemish.” Morally it means to keep one’s commitment to God with integrity. The standard is pure devotion toward God, not moral perfection (16:9; Job 1:1, 8 [tam]). In contrast to the initial covenant in which God had acted unilaterally (15:7–21), this time God exhorted Abram to keep the covenant by living by the highest moral standards (Wenham, Genesis 16–50, p. 20). After ...
... in Jacob’s family was seventy persons. Seventy is a crucial number in the OT, being the product of ten (a round number for a group larger than just a few; ten persons became the number required to form a congregation) times seven (the number of perfection). It symbolizes an ideal, complete unit, such as the Sanhedrin. The list of Jacob’s seventy children at the end of the patriarchal era parallels the seventy nations at the close of the primeval narrative (ch. 10). 46:28–30 Judah went ahead to meet ...
... ideas and suggestions of others. In a similar way, vv. 9–14 describe a proposal that originally came from Jethro as if it were Moses’ own idea. It seems unnecessary to regard the differences as coming from different documents (cf. Mayes, Deuteronomy, p. 126). It is perfectly natural to envisage a suggestion of the people being interpreted by Moses as the will of God, and then the actual command being given by Moses himself. 1:24–25 With the return of the spies and the good report of some of them (the ...
... designation throughout the rest of Deuteronomy for the legitimate sanctuary at which various cultic functions were to be carried out (e.g., 14:23ff.; 15:20; 16 [passim]; 17:8ff.; 18:6; 26:2). The place itself is not named. It would have been perfectly possible to identify a specific place-name in advance, since knowledge of the topography of the land was not lacking, as the references to Mts. Gerizim and Ebal show. The lack of a placename thus serves only to underline the importance of the name installed ...
... attempts have been made to explain why certain species were clean and others unclean. Some suggest that animals associated with pagan cults were unclean, but in many cases this does not hold—for example, bulls were sacred in Canaanite Baal worship yet perfectly clean in Israel. A popular view regards hygiene and health as a major factor. It is true that some of the unclean animals (e.g., pigs and carrion birds) are likely to convey contaminations and parasitic infestations. However, while we may recognize ...
... was meant to have shed in the light of the sacrifice of Christ. But secondly, the landlessness of Israel’s priestly tribe was not intended to impoverish them. They would be dependent, indeed. But dependence on an obedient people should have meant perfectly adequate provision for their material needs, just as Israel’s dependence on their faithful God would include full provision. The principle that those who serve God and teach God’s people should be fully provided for by God’s people is emphatically ...
... in punishment. Contrary to the popular view, the law does not condone rampant physical vengeance but has precisely the opposite intention. It is designed to ensure that penalties in law are strictly proportionate to offenses committed—a perfectly proper and still valid legal and ethical principle. It is very likely that the phraseology was standard and stereotypical, expressing the principle of proportionality, not necessarily intended to be followed literally in all cases (except that of deliberate ...
... woman’s protection that a certificate of divorce is to be given to the woman (lit. “into her hand”), since it proves her status as free to marry the second man. Otherwise she (and he) could be accused of adultery. Although the second marriage is perfectly legitimate and not legally adulterous, from the point of view of the first marriage it may have been considered morally so. This might explain the description of the woman as defiled (i.e., ritually unclean, or out of bounds) in relation to the first ...