... or from the official record the writer of Kings used. Of course, whether the date is original or not, Ezekiel says that he delivered this message to the exiles in Babylon on the very day that the siege of Jerusalem began. We may doubt the accuracy of his claim, but the claim itself still stands. 24:3 A parable. The same Heb. word, mashal, occurs in 17:2 for the riddle of the eagle and the vine; see also 12:22–23; 16:44; and 18:2–3, where mashal refers to a proverb. 24:6 The pot now encrusted, whose ...
... Jerusalem fell (see the discussion of 11:16), and it is certainly not the case now. The survivors have no right to claim the patriarchal promise; indeed, their actions show that they have less in common with Abraham than with the foreign nations, whom God ... Israelites the land because of the nations’ sins, and despite their own rebelliousness). Certainly, the survivors have no legitimate claim to the land. In verses 27–29, the Lord delivers judgment (again, introduced by the messenger formula). Far from ...
... who hold fast to my covenant— these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar. (Isa. 56:6–7) Isaiah 56:1–8 makes a very significant claim for ben-hannekar. This text does not restrict priestly access to Zadokites but extends it in particular to “the foreigner” (Isa. 56:7, “Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar”). In Ezekiel 44:7 the chief abomination of the people of ...
... fancy he really owns the cities, the forest, and the corn, in the same way as he owns the bricks on the nursery floor. . . . We have taught [people] to say “my God” in a sense not really very different from “my boots,” meaning “The God on whom I have a claim for my distinguished services and whom I exploit from the pulpit—the God I have done a corner in.” And all the time the joke is that the word “Mine” in its fully possessive sense cannot be uttered by a human being about anything.1
Matthew 12:22-37, Matthew 12:38-45, Matthew 12:46-50
Teach the Text
Jeannine K. Brown
... in obedience. Understanding the Text The controversy between Jesus and Galilean Pharisees intensifies in this passage. The Jewish leaders again accuse Jesus of casting out demons by the prince of demons (12:24; cf. 9:34). Jesus addresses their accusation with a set of analogies, claiming in the process to be the one who, led by the Spirit, is bringing God’s kingdom (12:28; cf. 4:17; 10:7). Jesus’ references to the Holy Spirit in Matthew cluster here (12:18, 28, 31, 32), indicating that Matthew ties the ...
... ” could be taken to support a kind of gnosticism, in which some people have an inside track on divine knowledge. Certainly, in some strands of the early church gnosticism became one way of interpreting such sayings of Jesus. And it is all too easy for Christians to claim special knowledge and act superior to others who have not yet responded to Jesus in faith. Yet God’s revelation is a gift, and God often “gifts” it to those whom we least expect to receive it (9:9–13; 11:25–27). So we ought to ...
... : “Are we envious of God’s great generosity when it is given to others who seem to deserve it less than we do?” By casting the question in this way, we might help people to hear the ways in which we, against the theology that we claim to hold, actually think we have earned God’s goodness and generosity to us. But, as Scripture affirms, God’s grace and mercy always initiate relationship and covenant. Our responses to God are truly that—responses. We respond to God’s prior work of covenanting by ...
Matthew 26:31-35, Matthew 26:36-46, Matthew 26:47-56, Matthew 26:57-68, Matthew 26:69-75
Teach the Text
Jeannine K. Brown
... toward Jesus, which has been palpable since his arrival in the city (21:23–27, 45–46; 22:15–40; 26:3–4), culminates in Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin. Jesus’ citation of Daniel 7:13–14 (see 26:64; see also 24:30–31) and the implicit claim that he is the Son of Man result in the charge of blasphemy and propel the story to the next political level, a trial before Pilate (27:1–2, 11–26). Interpretive Insights 26:31 This very night you will fall away on account of me. Matthew draws ...
... priests and elders derive from Jeremiah. 27:11 Are you the king of the Jews? Pilate’s question is essentially a contextualization of the high priest’s question (whether Jesus is the Messiah) in a Roman context, demonstrating that “messiah” is a kingly category and claim in the first-century world. You have said so. Jesus’ response here (sy legeis) is very similar to his answer to Caiaphas at 26:64 (sy eipas). It has a cryptic quality to it that does not allow Pilate to level a clear charge of ...
... and authoritative teaching. But sadly, many refused to follow him. In his book Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis argues that given the claims that Jesus made about himself, he was either a liar (“the Devil himself”; his claims were intended to deceive and lead astray), a lunatic (his claims were false, but he believed them), or Lord (“this man was, and is, the Son of God”).6If the claims of Jesus and the Bible are true, then he is Lord and demands our full commitment. Do your life choices reflect your ...
... would simply have been another visitor coming to worship. But as R. T. France points out, Jesus arrives in blatant fashion in a “decisive confrontation” with the Jewish leaders, “throwing down the gauntlet” in such a way that it forces them to respond to his claims.5The “Son of David” (10:47–48) is truly the Royal Messiah. 2. Jesus is the humble Messiah. Although Mark does not cite Zechariah 9:9 (cf. Matt. 21:5; John 12:15), he does show in Jesus’s extensive preparations that he intended the ...
... that belongs to “God alone.” 5:23 Which is easier: to say . . . ? It is easier to say that sin is forgiven because there is no visible result by which the outcome may be tested, whereas a claim to heal paralysis is clearly spurious if no visible change results. So Jesus uses the more falsifiable claim to reinforce the less tangible. 5:24 The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins. See the sidebar “The Son of Man.” Here the title reflects the earthly authority given to the “one ...
... ’s house” (2:49). 20:4 John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin? What looks like an evasive changing of the subject (especially when Jesus will go on to refuse a straight answer to their question) in fact implies a bold claim. John also had no formal authorization, but his ministry (here referred to by its most memorable feature, John’s innovative rite of baptism) had made a profound impression. If John’s mission had been from God, so was that of Jesus (whom John had described ...
... by faith is rooted in monotheism. In this scenario there is no longer any room for the law of Moses. It divided humankind, but justification by faith unites humankind. This is because all can have faith in Jesus, whereas only one nation (Israel) can lay claim to the law of Moses. 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law [nomos] by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law [nomos]. This verse has generated three major interpretations, to which I will add a fourth. First, the more traditional perspective ...
... predestination was fulfilled in him: God’s wrath for sinners was poured out on Christ on the cross, so that God’s mercy could be poured out on those same sinners. One can see from this that those who hold the corporate understanding of election claim to have resolved the tension between divine sovereignty and human responsibility. I would like to side with the corporate view, but the objections raised by Paul’s critic(s) (Rom. 9:6, 14, 19) are precisely what one would expect if God were choosing some ...
... 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters. Although there is much to be said for the use of parakal? (“I appeal”) as a formal rhetorical device designed to place the orator in a position of authority, Paul’s purpose here is not to claim authority but to speak urgently to “brothers and sisters”5concerning how the lordship of Christ should create unity among his followers. in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is not likely that Paul thinks of this phrase as a kind of healing formula that ...
... be called infantile and unable to digest “regular food” can be hard for anyone. It only becomes worse if one’s self-perception is the opposite. According to Paul, however, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In spite of claims of personal experiences, even grand spiritual experiences, Christians whose decisions and behavior seem unchanged by God’s Spirit remain infants in Christ. Not only do they not recognize the gospel’s impact on every aspect of life; they accept the surrounding culture ...
... their “before patrons.”3 Ultimately, therefore, no one had bragging rights. Everyone owed his or her life to someone else. Since all Christians depend on the same patron (the Kyrios, Jesus Christ) and remain completely in his debt, none have bragging rights to claim special distinction. The force of Paul’s language is enhanced even further by his switch to singular (“you”) in this verse alone.4 What he says applies to every single individual, not just to the group. 4:8 Already you have all you ...
... could do only when reconciled to God. Science: In the field of forensics, investigators are ever more dependent on biometric and biological clues. DNA and fingerprints leave behind calling cards that distinctly identify each individual from a sea of over seven billion faces. A person can claim to have had no involvement in a crime, but if his or her DNA is found at the crime scene, or a fingerprint is spotted on a piece of evidence, there can be no doubt that that person was in some way present or involved ...
... re-creating act, will raise those who belong to Christ’s community with a new body and a new soul fit for a postfallen world. Those who deny the resurrection, then, deny God’s power to repeal sin’s all-encompassing effect. They claim eternal separation; Paul proclaims eternal unification. Christ’s resurrection has guaranteed an everlasting restoration of his community in God’s presence, not an eternal separation of body and soul. 15:13–15 If there is no resurrection . . . we are then found to ...
... earth were the traditional witnesses to the covenant agreement, and this same language is used in the Bible (Deut. 32:1; Isa. 1:2). When Job maintained his innocence in 16:18–19, he appealed to the heavens and the earth as witnesses that could corroborate his claims. Zophar now insists that all of creation will testify to the guilt of the wicked person. Because of that, there is no place for the wicked to hide from God’s justice. 20:29 Such is the fate God allots the wicked. Zophar does not directly ...
... is there room for an absolute denial of God’s existence? Indeed, the common argument that the psalm cites a time of practical atheism, that is, when people acted as if there were no God, fits the genre of Israel’s world better. Indeed, the fool’s claim of 14:1, “There is no God,” may be irony of attribution (e.g., the statement that Amos attributed to the oppressors of the poor in an attempt to represent their thinking, in Amos 8:4–6). Based on the fool’s actions, the psalmist has attributed ...
... affirms that, even as a youth, one can distinguish oneself as pure and upright by one’s conduct rather than by one’s claims, just like the elderly righteous (20:7). Verse 12 refers again to God’s role in assessment (20:10 and 12 end with “them ... 1) and good favor (cf. Prov. 3:4), presumably through one’s wise conduct, are more worthy of pursuit than substantial wealth. The claim of verse 2 is not that God is the creator of a socioeconomic hierarchy; rather, both rich and poor are under his sovereign ...
... that Jacob wanted to be the firstborn child. Thus the second child was named Jacob (“the heel grasper”), a name that is also a pun on the Hebrew word meaning “deceiver.” Later Jacob’s deceptive ways were fully revealed when he deceived his father by claiming that he was Esau; thus, he was able to steal the blessing of his father (Gen. 27:35–36). Another example that illustrates the character of Jacob was his wrestling with the angel of the Lord (12:3b–4a; Genesis 32). While Jacob was on his ...
Matthew 26:57-68, Matthew 26:69-75, Matthew 27:1-10
One Volume
Gary M. Burge
... interlude of Peter’s denial, Matthew continues narrating Jesus’s trial, with the Sanhedrin turning him over to Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea (27:1–2), presumably to authorize and enact the death sentence they have deemed appropriate to his claims and perceived threats (for Roman jurisdiction of capital cases, see John 18:31; Josephus, Jewish War 6.126). An important theme in the trial scene (and Judas’s demise sandwiched within; 27:3–10) is that of innocence and culpability. Jesus alone ...