... , Solomon’s adversaries, and Jeroboam’s rebelling against Solomon. These narratives blame Solomon for the division in the monarchy that followed his reign. Given the Chronicler’s desire to idealize Solomon as a prototype of royalty, it is understandable that these Deuteronomistic narratives were not included in the Chronicler’s construction. Summary of 2 Chron. 2:1—9:31 In retrospect, several key ideas clearly dominate the Chronicler’s Solomon narrative. Interestingly, the Chronicler sets it in ...
... kun) their hearts on the God of their fathers (2 Chron. 20:33). The final judgment on this king is therefore expressed in the programmatic language of the Chronicler, using again the well-known term kun to reflect the writer’s understanding of Yahweh’s kingdom as well established and well ordered. The failed maritime project comes as a very last confirmation that Jehoshaphat is not altogether an exemplary king. Another prophetic voice, Eliezer son of Dodavahu of Mareshah, interprets this event: because ...
... with a change: the people, however, continued their corrupt practices. It is, however, absolutely clear that these “corrupt practices” of “the people” did not blemish King Jotham’s righteous reputation in any way. Theologically, the Chronicler works with an understanding of individual responsibility, a view that already emerges in some prophetic material (e.g., Ezek. 18). 27:3–4 These verses focus on the successful building projects of Jotham. The Chronicler adds to the source text (2 Kgs. 15 ...
... in these days. He therefore sees a new section starting in 2 Chronicles 29, which focuses on the reunited monarchy. I am not so convinced that these aspirations were political in nature. However, the new phase certainly gave new impetus to the understanding of All-Israel. The Chronicler promoted not a revived and reunified David-Solomon empire but a theological unity, a national reunion around the temple worship of Yahweh. The Chronicler, however, related Hezekiah and Josiah to one another in a way that is ...
... him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon. Second Chronicles 33:12 is pivotal in the Chronicler’s portrayal of King Manasseh: in his distress he sought the favor of the LORD his God. He did what was, according to the Chronicler’s theological understanding, the basic thing to do: he humbled himself (kana?) greatly before the God of his fathers. As a result, the LORD was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea. Manasseh was therefore returned to Jerusalem. He then knew that the LORD is God ...
... and Barnabas were the most notable members. Paul frequently refers to his apostleship in his letters (e.g., Rom. 11:13; 1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:1), and 1 Cor. 9:1f. and 2 Cor. 12:12 should be noted especially for what they add to our understanding of the office. The primary qualifications of an apostle were that he had been an eyewitness of the post-resurrection appearance of Jesus (Acts 1:21; 1 Cor. 9:1) and had received a distinct call and commission from the risen Lord. The primary function of an apostle ...
... , according to Peter, was that the Christ would suffer (see note on 11:20). A difficulty arises here in that the theme of a suffering Messiah, far from being found in all the prophets, is discernible in very few. In view of this, we should probably understand the prophets collectively, so that what any one of them said is attributed to them all. And in any case, in a broad sense, they did all anticipate the messianic redemption, though they may not have known it or the means whereby it would be accomplished ...
... ., which God spoke by the Holy Spirit through … David (v. 25; see disc. on 1:16). In the first instance, this psalm was addressed to a king, reminding him that at his coronation he had been acclaimed “the Lord’s anointed” (i.e., “messiah”). Understandably, with its use of such terms as “his anointed,” “my king,” and “my son,” the psalm had come to be understood of the eschatological Messiah (though not exclusively so), at least by the middle of the first century B.C. (see disc. on 13 ...
... probably take them all as meaning the church generally. This statement can be understood, as in 2:47, of the favor (the Greek word charis can mean “favor” or “grace”) in which they were held by the people. It is better, however, following NIV, to understand it of God’s grace (cf. 6:8; Luke 2:40). This gives better sense to the connection expressed in the Greek (not shown in NIV) between this and the following verse, namely, that the absence of need among the believers (v. 34) was evidence of ...
... Pharisees (cf. Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1; John 3:1ff.; 7:50; 19:39), and in any case, the issue was now very different from the one that had divided them. Then, it had been a question of due regard for the law. The Pharisees had a clear understanding of how the law should be kept, and when they saw that Jesus did not conform to their view, some went so far as to speak of contriving his death (Mark 3:6, though in the end it was the Sadducees rather than the Pharisees who were chiefly responsible; see ...
... his views. In short, the Hellenists were probably the main target of their attack, so that it was they for the most part who were compelled to leave Jerusalem. No doubt the Hebrew Christians were also affected. Some may have fled with the Hellenists. But we need not understand by the word all that every member of the church left the city; verse 3 shows that they did not. Luke is prone to use “all” in the sense of “many” (see disc. on 9:35). But even of those who left, many may soon have returned ...
... in any case, from the fact that the official went on his way rejoicing, we can fairly assume that the Spirit had “fallen upon him” in accordance with the promise of 2:38 (see disc. on 3:8). Nor does the longer reading make any difference to our understanding of what happened to Philip. Whether “angel” or Spirit, it is all one (see disc. on v. 26). There is no need to read a miracle into the manner of Philip’s departure, though Luke’s expression is undoubtedly a striking one (cf. 1 Kings 18:12; 2 ...
... it a dramatic form), the angel spoke Cornelius’ name much as the Lord had called to Paul on the road to Damascus, and Cornelius answered in much the same manner: What is it, Lord? (v. 4; cf. 9:4f.). The language may be Luke’s, but he wants us to understand that Cornelius felt himself to be in the divine presence (the word fear, v. 4, is a particularly strong one). He was assured, however, that his prayers and gifts to the poor had gone up as a memorial offering before God (v. 4; cf. Isa. 43:1). This is ...
... to its rulers). His good works are attributed to the Holy Spirit and power with which God had anointed him (v. 38). Some interpret this of the incarnation (cf. Luke 1:35), but because it follows the reference to John the Baptist, it is better to understand it of Jesus’ baptism. Jesus himself affirmed that he had been “anointed” with the Spirit, without pin-pointing when it happened (Luke 4:18). But that he had been anointed was proof that God was with him (v. 38). This last statement might seem to ...
... 6, 7). Additional Notes 14:1 As usual: NIV is probably right to interpret this as their doing the same as they had in Antioch by going first to the synagogue, though for this meaning a different expression is used in 17:2. The alternative is to understand it as indicating that Paul and Barnabas entered the synagogue “at the same time,” making the point that their ministry was a joint one. 14:2–3 The awkwardness of these verses is smoothed out in the Western text: “But the chiefs of the synagogue and ...
... helps to shed light on the narrative. 16:13 On the Sabbath the party went outside the city gate to the river in search of any Jews who might have met there for worship. The Greek text has them simply going “out of the gate,” and as long as we understand “the gate” to be that of the city, NIV has given the sense of it. But another identification is possible. A little over a mile to the west of the city, on the Via Egnatia, stood a Roman arch, now in ruins; and a little beyond this ran the river ...
... journey” had evidently left a deep impression on the Jews of Asia Minor, and this was known to their co-religionists in Macedonia. In detail the charge was two-pronged. Paul and Silas were accused of defying Caesar’s decrees—an assertion difficult to understand, if it had any basis, unless Paul’s preaching had been construed as a prediction of a change of ruler; there were imperial decrees against such forecasts—and of saying that there was another king (v. 7). This was the same charge that had ...
... their ears it sounded as though he was advocating foreign gods (lit., “demons,” but in the neutral Greek sense). Apparently they misconstrued his message to be about two deities, Jesus and his consort, Anastasis (the Greek word for resurrection), understanding them perhaps as Healing (Jesus sounds something like this in Greek) and Restoration. It is not surprising that they should think this, for the Athenians themselves had raised altars to Modesty, Pity, Piety, and the like (cf. Pausanias, Description ...
... , it was the crowd who set upon Sosthenes. Encouraged by Gallio’s attitude, they were quick to show their own contempt for the Jews. Alternatively, it may have been the Jews themselves who beat him up, as the context would suggest. On this understanding, having failed so ignominiously to make their charges stick, they vented their rage on their own leader, who had presented their case. Or if this was the Sosthenes of 1 Corinthians 1:1 (the coincidence is certainly striking), though still the leader of ...
... until Paul reached Jerusalem in 21:17. 18:25 With great fervor: The literal sense of this phrase has been given in the discussion, but instead of his own spirit (as we have taken it) the reference could be to the Spirit of God. On this understanding, it is conceivable that Apollos’ faith had already brought him the gift of the Spirit before he received Christian baptism, or even that he did not receive the Christian rite, his earlier baptism being deemed sufficient in view of his charismata (see G. W. H ...
... see, his work in Ephesus was at an end and his thoughts were now turned to his second theme, his future ministry. He was on his way to Jerusalem “bound in spirit” (v. 22, so the Greek). Some take this as a reference to the Holy Spirit (so NIV); others understand it of his own human spirit. Perhaps the fact that the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the next verse (23) tells in favor of the latter, and so we have taken it, though in the long run it amounts to much the same thing. The point is that he felt ...
... Holy Spirit himself (see disc. on 1:16). They are reproduced here in full from the LXX. Paul recognized that these words had first been addressed to an earlier generation, but their final fulfillment had come in the present generation of Jews who would not “understand” and “see,” for they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes, not wanting to hear the truth about sin and their need of salvation (vv. 26, 27). They were resisting the Holy Spirit (cf. 7:51), and as long as they ...
... 66:6) gives a straight catalogue of various things organized, in part, into groups and introduced by the preposition in—persecutions (beatings, imprisonments and riots), deprivations (hard work, sleepless nights and hunger), fruits of the Spirit (purity, understanding, patience and kindness; Holy Spirit, sincere love, truthful speech, power of God). The second part of the list (vv. 7b–8a) gives a shorter catalogue of paired items introduced by the preposition with to describe the attendant circumstances ...
... G. K. Beale, “The Old Testament Background of Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5–7 and its Bearing on the Literary Problem of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1,” NTS 35 (1989), pp. 550–81; Heinz-Wolfgang Kuhn, “The Impact of the Qumran Scrolls on the Understanding of Paul,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research (STDJ 10; Leiden: Brill, 1992), pp. 327–39 (here p. 335); William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1 (JSNTSup 85 ...
... was chosen by the churches to aid Paul in carrying out the collection. Paul sees the collection in a theological context. He personally commits himself to honor the Lord (lit., “for the glory of the Lord”). According to Isaiah 66:18–21, a pivotal passage for understanding Paul’s mission to the nations, those who organize the ingathering of the nations to Zion and the offering of the nations for the Lord, declare the “glory” of the Lord among the nations (v. 19). 8:20–21 Paul handles a possible ...