... slaves. But this is a freedom they will not want. It is a freedom to fall by sword, plague and famine (for this formula of siege and defeat, see Additional Notes on 14:12). Rather than the “joy of the whole earth” (Ps. 48:2), they will be abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth. Verses 18–20 then recount the ritual performed at the time of the making of the covenant that promised release to the Hebrew slaves. It involved cutting a calf in two and then the parties walking through the halves. This is ...
... v. 5), flocking to the high places to offer multitudinous sacrifices (v. 6). That very action condemns Israel, however, testifying to its faithlessness, as in a court of law. Israel worships Baal under the guise of worshiping Yahweh and brings forth children conceived in the abhorrent sexual rites of the baal cult (v. 7). As a result, Yahweh has withdrawn himself from his faithless people and left them to their fate, abandoning them to the death that is inevitable when the God of life is absent (v. 7). Some ...
... and skillful magician and expert in charms—all those who in any way guided the life of the community or had authority over it. Verse 11 repeats the indictment of the judicial leaders which we saw in 3:1–4. (See the comment there.) But their abhorrence of mišpāṭ, justice, is now attributed to all of Jerusalem’s authorities, who abhor God’s order and commandments for the community’s life and who distort and corrupt every thought and action that is right, that is in accord with God’s will. The ...
... verses 5–6 and no doubt that Yahweh can fulfill the intention announced there. Pelting the woman/city with filth suggests a move away from the prostitution/immorality metaphor, since the word does not just suggest trash. More literally it denotes “abhorrent things”; the prophets use this term to refer to the loathsome worship practices of other peoples. The comment thus parallels Yahweh’s earlier declaration about destroying images (1:14). The implication is then perhaps that not only has the city ...
... bread (v. 58) Verses 53–56 present a different phenomenon. Four times in rapid succession Jesus speaks of the twofold necessity of eating his flesh and drinking his blood. Nothing in the bread metaphor prepares the reader for the mention of drinking blood, so abhorrent to the Jewish mind (e.g., Lev. 17:10–14). Just when the Jews take offense at the notion of eating his flesh (v. 52), Jesus multiplies the offense many times over. Instead of explaining the statement away, he tells them they must drink ...
... of events to keep Jacob’s household from suffering retaliation from the neighboring villages, as will be seen in Jacob’s move from Shechem. Additional Notes 34:7 The phrase “he had done folly in Israel” defines the abuse of Dinah as a repulsive, abhorrent act. This phrase was applied to various repulsive deeds in Israel’s history (Deut. 22:21; Josh. 7:15; Judg. 20:6, 10; 2 Sam. 13:12; Jer. 29:23). Its occurrence here results from a later interpretation of this event, for “in Israel” requires ...
... constitutes a relaxing of the earlier Levitical restriction of all slaughter for food to sacrifices at the sanctuary. On this issue, and on the relationship of both texts to the event in 1 Sam. 14:31–35, see McConville, Law and Theology, pp. 42–48. 12:31 On the Israelite abhorrence of the Canaanite practice of child-sacrifice, cf. 2 Kgs. 16:3; 17:17; 21:6; Jer. 19:4; Ezek. 23:37; Ps. 106:37f.; and C. J. H. Wright, God’s Land, pp. 231–35.
... the other hand, that it is the LORD’s fury that is meant (cf. qeṣe p in Deut. 29:28; Josh. 22:20) is to accept that the authors are allowing for a link between child sacrifice and divine action—as if this practice, which other passages describe as abhorrent to the LORD (cf. 2 Kgs. 16:3; 17:17; 21:6), was in this one instance acceptable. This, too, seems unlikely. It is much more likely that the fury is thought of as in the first instance human (cf. both the other places in Kings where Hb. qṣ p ...
... for Jerusalem (note esp. the terrifying picture of the Lord pursuing Israel with the sword in both texts). Once again, particular connections appear with the message of judgment in Jeremiah: “I will pursue them with the sword, famine and plague and will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth and an object of cursing and horror, of scorn and reproach, among all the nations where I drive them” (Jer. 29:18; see also 24:9–10; 42:18; 44:8). This depiction of divine wrath and vengeance ...
... are “something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind” (Jer. 7:31; near parallels in Jer. 19:5–6 [to Baal] and 32:34 [to Molech] further denounce such sacrifices as idolatrous). Ezekiel also regards child sacrifice as abhorrent, defiling, and spiritually devastating. However, rather than denying that God commanded the practice, Ezekiel asserts it! Why would the Lord have issued such an obscene command? In each of the three movements of Ezekiel’s Unheilsgeschichte, Israel rejected God’s ...
... would be held accountable before God—avoiding idolatry, immorality, and eating meat without the blood drained from it (cf. Gen. 9:1–7; Jub. 7.20–21; Sib. Or. 4.24–39; Acts 15:20–21, 29). Romans 1:18–32 highlights the abhorrence of idolatry and immorality. Interpretive Insights 1:18 The wrath of God . . . against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth. God’s wrath is personal, not an impersonal cause and effect built into the universe to correct wrong behavior ...
... pagan temples for the money. Related to this is the theory that Jews at this time were relaxing the strictures against using the precious metals from idolatrous articles (cf. Deut. 7:26). If so, Paul would then be saying that such a practice contradicted Jewish abhorrence of idolatry. Second, Paul could be pointing out the hypocrisy of some Jews who failed to pay the annual Jerusalem temple tax (see Pss. Sol. 8.11–13; T. Levi 14.5). Third, “robbing temples” could be a symbolic way to refer to the ...
... such people. The situation in Corinth was very similar to that, and Paul calls the church to rely on no one but Christ. As many high-profile examples have shown in recent years, the opposite can bring the church to accept behavior so abhorrent and unethical that even the surrounding society considers it criminal. 2. The text deals broadly with sexual immorality and more specifically with the issue of incest and adultery. Paul’s response proves a helpful guide to any Bible teacher or preacher who prepares ...
... not know that . . . ? Paul is flabbergasted that he has to correct even basic matters—huge foundational issues of anthropology—that should be known to everyone.3 Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? The abhorrence of taking holy vessels (that which belongs to Christ) and using them in the service of the unholy (porn?, “prostitute”) is to Paul self-evident. His triple use of “members” (mel?) is to highlight the relational quality of the Corinthian believers ...
... creatures to those with fins and scales eliminates shellfish, shrimp, and the like. The word “unclean” (sheqets) in verses 10–12 (also vv. 13, 20, 23, 40–41), whose root means “spurn, scorn,”3could be rendered stronger: “detestable” (NRSV, ESV), “abhorrent” (NASB), or “abomination” (KJV). 11:13–19 birds. The birds here are primarily predatory or carrion-eating. The bat, a mammal, is listed with birds as a flying creature. 11:20–23 flying insects . . . that walk on all fours ...
... the revulsion that Egyptians had for Hebrews and shepherds (Gen. 43:32; 46:34); for moral indignation for such things as arrogance, murder, false balances, lying, and injustice (Prov. 6:16–18; 11:1; 12:22; 17:15); and in religious contexts for the abhorrence God has for idols (Deut. 7:25–26; 32:16). “Abominations” are things God “hates” (Deut. 12:31; Prov. 6:16). Incest and child sacrifice are so loathsome that God will cast the Canaanites out before Israel (vv. 24–25). “Vomited” (in vv ...
... ’s widow is childless, constitutes a permitted exception to this rule (Deut. 25:5–7). 20:22–23 vomit you out. This metaphor is fulfilled by God’s directing Israel to drive the Canaanites out of the land. He commands this because of abhorrent sins like those listed in this chapter. But in an echo of the warning of Leviticus 18:24–28, if Israel does these forbidden things, the land will expel them too. Eventually, the Israelites act like Canaanites, including making human sacrifices to Molek ...
... detestable to the Lord (3:32). This is the first of twenty-one occurrences of the word toebah in Proverbs (here, what the Lord “detests”; translated as “abomination” in the KJV), which designates morally or cultically abhorrent practices (e.g., aberrant sexual relationships, idol worship, occult activities, child sacrifice, eating unclean food, sacrificing defective animals, business fraud). The godly, however, are offered friendship with God, literally his “secret counsel” (NKJV; cf. Ps. 25:14 ...
... healed of blindness and who also eagerly told others what had happened to him. Jesus and his disciples came upon a man who had been blind from birth. The disciples asked the Master who had sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind. As abhorrent as this theology may seem to us, it was the accepted way of looking at things in New Testament times. Physical defects were seen as being the direct result of somebody’s sin. If not you, maybe your parents were at fault if you had a disabling ...
... 16 According to C. G. Montefiore (The Synoptic Gospels, 2 vols. [New York: Ktav, 1968], vol. 2, p. 501), “The argument which Jesus employs is scarcely sound. The ox must be watered every day, or it would suffer greatly. Cruelty to animals was abhorrent to the rabbis. But the woman, who had been rheumatic for eighteen years, could well have waited another day. Unsound arguments of this kind would have been speedily detected by the trained Rabbis.” Montefiore’s assessment is wanting. Jesus is not trying ...
... posed an utter contradiction for Paul’s Jewish contemporaries. In Judaism God justifies only those within the covenant, whereas the wicked stand outside the covenant and thus outside the possibility of salvation. To acquit, much less justify, the ungodly was abhorrent to the morally conscientious (Exod. 23:7; Prov. 17:15; Isa. 5:23). Paul, however, understood wickedness or “ungodliness,” as the Greek asebēs could also be rendered, far more radically than did normative Judaism, for, as he argued in ...
... , there is no need of a resurrection of the dead, for the dead live as being truly freed spirits. The dead have superseded mundane physicality by leaving their dead bodies behind. There is no need for a resurrection of the dead; such a notion is abhorrent, since the body has been left behind in death—and that for the better. Paul opposes this line of dualistic thinking. Note the odd comment in verse 46, where Paul argues for the necessity of the physical—for its priority and for its actual redemption ...
... . Scarlet wool is also an uncertain rendering. The form of the material as thread or wool is not clear. 19:9 Water of cleansing is literally “water of impurity” or water for the removal of impurity. The rendering of NIV is appropriate to the context. Niddah refers to the unclean, abhorrent. I have taken khatta’t hiw’ as something which removes sin. That fits the purification context. See further J. Milgrom, “The Paradox of the Red Cow (Num 19),” VT 31 (1981), pp. 62–72.
... Even the holy ones (heavenly beings, angels) and the heavens themselves are not “pure” enough to earn God’s trust, let alone humans who are vile and corrupt. These last two terms are the Hebrew verbs tʿb, “vile” (“be loathed; be abhorrent”) and ʾlkh, “corrupt.” Both appear in the Niphal participle form, which links them together visually. Eliphaz also describes the human (ʾish) as so enmeshed in evil that it drinks up evil (ʿawlah) like water! This description reflects an almost casual ...
... who is satisfied to retreat into a confidence in personal wisdom—“I know what I believe!”—while allowing that the contrasting viewpoints of others are equally valid. This hallmark of contemporary, pluralistic society (“whatever is good for you is good for you”) is abhorrent to Elihu, who follows the dictum of Proverb 26:5: “Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.” “Do not say,” Elihu contends, let God refute him, not man. To leave Job’s refutation up ...