... 4:13; 5:4. In the papyri parousia is used of the official state visit of a king. See TDNT, vol. 5, pp. 858–71; NIDNTT, vol. 2, pp. 898–935; Turner, pp. 404–8. Cleverly invented (sesophismenois): This was a term applied to the claims of quack doctors. Stories: The Greek word is mythois, fables, myths in the popular sense of stories of gods descending to earth, which reports of the transfiguration might have suggested. Told (gnōrizein): to make known, often used in the NT for revealing a divine mystery ...
... true doctrine, especially that which concerns the return of the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus Peter’s readers will be kept from being carried away by the powerful current of nefarious error propagated by lawless men, those who preach a false libertinism that claims freedom from all moral constraint by adopting a perverted view of Christian liberty. To be deceived by that ruinous teaching, Peter warns, would mean that you would face spiritual disaster, nothing less than a fatal fall from your secure position in ...
... The official declaration of “laziness” (rapah, idleness or relaxation) was a propaganda tool that reinforced the law. After the foremen complain to the pharaoh, it is the first thing he mentions (v. 17)—for it gives the “logic” for his new policy. Pharaoh claims that Aaron and Moses’ request for the religious pilgrimage to the desert is based on lies (v. 9), motivated by laziness. The reader knows that the logic is fallacious, but Pharaoh was impervious. The so-called lies in this case are the ...
... will not listen to you.” How much harder could the pharaoh’s heart become? This expression of God’s involvement seems odd at first. Pharaoh’s decisions not to let the people go are not surprising given the great economic loss of slaves. God’s claim to be involved at all in his hardness of heart is surprising, since it does not seem necessary to the story. It is included because the prolongation of the plagues demonstrated God’s control over the elements of nature. The Lord is God over life and ...
... Hebrew word is considered an onomatopoeia, as it sounds like the noise made by new frogs. Creation seemed out of control, with the Egyptian frog goddess Heqet (whose purpose was to assist in childbirth) running amok. Moses and Aaron presented the competing claim, which was that the Creator (Yahweh) was controlling the creation for a specific purpose. The text recounts this plague in an abbreviated form, without a description of the actual conversation with Pharaoh or his response to the threat of the plague ...
... one animal belonging to the Israelites died. As in the plague of flies, the key discovery in the text is that the Israelites have again experienced the miracle of protection. This was also the proleptic sign of their deliverance during the Passover. The biblical claim is that the Lord set the limits (v. 4) and “Behold!” Yahweh fulfilled the promise of protection from the epidemic. Pharaoh did continue to have power over his subjects and sent men. The irony of his “sending” is hidden in the verb root ...
... verses, such as moving vv. 6–8 to follow vv. 11–12 to keep the quail verses together in more logical sequence. Quail, like this text, cannot be herded. 16:15 Many have posited and discussed natural explanations for the manna and quail. The text claims that the Lord provided them at the right time and did not provide any manna on the seventh day. The question under consideration is “by what means did God provide this food?” Flocks of quail migrating between Europe and Africa still arrive exhausted on ...
... . As a descendant of Abraham, he may have known the promises given him and seen the beginning of God’s work through Israel. What the pharaoh and the Egyptians know (7:5; 14:4, 18) and the Israelites know firsthand (6:7; 10:2; 14:31), Jethro also claimed to know. The whole earth did not yet know but, with Jethro, the word had begun to spread (see comment at 9:14–16, 29). The final part of Jethro’s confession of faith was his burnt offering and other sacrifices, brought to God and eaten together with ...
... either case, it is clear that one ought not to be swayed by whatever powers are in play. The rabbis interpreted this to mean that the tyranny of literal applications of biblical law was not to sway competent and impartial judges. Nor were they to claim to special revelations from God, but rather use an impartial weighing of circumstances with the law (Tigay, “Exodus,” p. 158). The fifth law in this first sequence is surprising: “do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.” The context of 22 ...
... God in view (v. 11). God took a physical form that could be seen, as the text repeats, using two words to say, “they saw” God (v. 10 raʾah, v. 11 khazah). The second word denotes an intense perception of what is actually there and is true. The claim that they saw God is surprising, but so also is their awareness that this was a potentially dangerous situation. God did not raise his hand against these leaders. It was commonly known that one could not see God and live (33:20; see also Judg. 6:22–23 ...
... a tabernacle that was beautiful in a specific way, marked with gold almonds (not silver) and curtains made with three colors (blue, purple, and crimson). God came down to dwell in a place designed according to what God personally desired. The text claims to teach about God’s preferences, not simply to record how to construct, reconstruct, or imagine Israel’s portable worship space. If we interpret Exodus 25–31 and 35–40 solely by means of sociological-religious categories, we will not understand the ...
... the fire, and out came this calf!” (v. 24b). In fact he had made the “idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool” (v. 4). He had also built the altar in front of the calf and announced the festival (v. 5). To Moses, he claimed that the calf had somehow magically self-generated. Moses later recounted that the Lord was angry enough to destroy Aaron too, but did not (Deut. 9:20). The text does not exonerate Aaron of guilt. He made the calf and acted as its priest (vv. 2–6, 21–25, 35 ...
... and speaking to the Lord in Judges 6:22–23 and 13:22. God remained free to make exceptions to the rule, and allowed these people to live (24:10–11; see Num. 12:8; Deut. 34:10; Ezek. 1:26–28). Fretheim comes to three conclusions about the OT claims that people saw God: (a) God can be seen. The issue is not visibility, but whether or not you live through it. (b) God is capable of allowing God’s self to be seen, and does it. People live to tell about it because God grants an exception to the ...
... The location of “the altar . . . the Lord will choose” remains ambiguous. Later readers will assume that the place is the temple in Jerusalem, but that point is not stated here. God still has the freedom to appear wherever appropriate. No one location can claim to possess God. In any case, the Gibeonites continue to serve God and the people as woodcutters and water carriers to the time when the story is retold and becomes Scripture. The humility of the Gibeonites points out that they have learned their ...
... s identification of the Waters of Merom with Tell el-Khureibeh, which is just over three km south of Marun er-Ras. Meron is mentioned in the campaign annals of Thutmose III (1504–1450 B.C.E.) and Rameses II. Tiglath Pileser III (733/32) of Assyria also claims to have taken Merom, indicating the strategic nature of the place (D. C. Liid, “Merom, Waters of,” ABD 4:705). 11:11 And he burned up Hazor itself: The site of the fortified town is located in northern Galilee at the southwest corner of the Huleh ...
... curse the people of God but only blesses them (Num. 23–24). Descriptions of the inheritance of Gad and of the half-tribe of Manasseh follow similar formats. An introduction states that Moses gave the land to the tribe, clan by clan (13:24, 29). A conclusion claims that the area is the tribal inheritance given by Moses to descendants, clan by clan (13:28, 31). The division of the land also is the same: a geographical description followed by a list of towns and villages. In a second note about the tribe of ...
... the majority of the spies and people rejected their report, Caleb reminds Joshua, I, however, followed the LORD my God wholeheartedly (14:8). This faithfulness is the motivation for Moses’ promise of an inheritance in Canaan (14:9). At age eighty-five, Caleb claims land for himself and his descendants. He is ready and able to assume responsibility for receiving land filled with hostile enemy. Caleb indicates that willingness by saying, I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I’m just ...
... mentioned in Deuteronomy (Deut. 5:19; 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; 23:2, 3, 4, 9). The narrator gives no number of the representatives attending the assembly but rather says representatives of all the tribes attended. Again, the summary repeats the claim that the conquest is complete: The country (lit. land) was brought under their control (lit. subdued; 18:1). The narrative then focuses on allotments to the remaining seven tribes. Despite the confident statement that Israel already controls the land, Joshua chides ...
... Eleazer the priest finish dividing the land among the people, the tribes grant Joshua an inheritance in the hill country of Ephraim, the center of the country. The divine designation of this land for Joshua also comes by casting lots, the Urim and Thummim. Joshua claims the land and builds up the city of Timnath Serah, the place of his burial (24:30). Verse 51 summarizes the completion of the division of the tribal lands. The land belongs to the tribes and families that will become the nation of Israel, not ...
... ; 21:17; 22:11–15; 24:7, 40; 31:11; Exod. 3:2; 14:19; 23:20, 23; 33:2; Num. 20:16; 22:16, 22–27, 31–35. I brought you up out of Egypt: The Lord’s act in liberating the Israelites from slavery is foundational to his claim over them as his people in covenant contexts (cf. Deut 1:3, 35; 6:10, 18, 23; 7:13; 8:1; 11:9, 21; 19:8; 26:3, 15; 28:11; 30:20; 31:20–23). 2:5 They offered sacrifices to the LORD: The Hb. word for the type ...
... raised the issue of kingship; it was unthinkable, because the Lord was their king. He became their king when they pledged absolute and unceasing allegiance to him at Mount Sinai; they existed as a people solely because of that covenant agreement. So to claim any king other than the Lord would be to deny their very existence. True, the Lord did give them flesh-and-blood leaders, but they were viewed as representatives of the heavenly king, who worked through them by special charisms imparted by the Spirit ...
... . The spies’ motivational speech to their fellows to not hesitate to go there and take it over, because God has put it in their hands—not to mention that the people were unsuspecting—all sounds wonderful, until we realize that, in spite of their claim to have divine approval, they were being motivated to disobey God. One wonders why they did not demonstrate that same level of zeal in taking what God had actually given them. Perhaps the pacifistic nature of the Laishites had something to do with it ...
... in 1:9). Not only does she believe that Ruth needs a home, she also believes it to be her responsibility to help her find it. Underscoring this parental concern, Tg translates this line, “I swear I shall not rest (l’ ’nykh) until the time when I claim for you a resting place (nykh’), in order that you might be happy” (Tg. Ruth 3:1). 3:2 Is not Boaz, with whose servant girls you have been, a kinsman of ours? In the Syriac Bible, Naomi calls Boaz mkhkwmtn (“our kinsman”). What makes this ...
... an effort to engage, explain and refute the dominant literary theorists who view the genealogy, with good reason, as secondary (e.g., Rudolph, Joüon, Bertman, Campbell, Sasson); and give more attention to the book’s canonical-historical context (see the too-facile discussion on pp. 19–21, particularly the claims for canonical “originality” on p. 20, n. 29).
... of conveying the pedigree, hierarchy, and status of a specific group or nation. Anthropological studies show that these genealogies do not normally have a historical intention, but rather serve social, judicial, or religious purposes, legitimating certain claims concerning these spheres of society. Anyone reading the genealogies of Chronicles against the background of other Hebrew scriptures would notice that these lists are strongly selective in their portrayals. We find both segmented and linear forms ...