... The Priests at Nob: 21:1–9 Having accepted that Saul’s enmity was fixed and that exile was the only option, David sought initial supplies from the priest at Nob. Ahimelech’s wariness on David’s arrival may have reflected an awareness of Saul’s antipathy toward David and a fear of getting involved in a power dispute. However, it is equally possible that Ahimelech’s expression of ignorance in 22:14–15 was the truth and his fear was that David would bring Philistine troops in his wake. David’s ...
... He confirms that the decree still stands (6:12). They then spring the trap by informing on Daniel and indicting him. By noting that he is one of the exiles from Judah (6:13), they are indicating their prejudice against foreigners and possibly even special antipathy toward Jews. They accuse Daniel of paying no attention to the king or to his decree, for he still prays three times a day (6:13). Unlike Nebuchadnezzar in chapter 3, who angrily seeks to destroy the three faithful Jews, Darius is here portrayed ...
... would be a succession of three or four empires could date from the Persian or early Greek period. The representation of Greece as the worst and most destructive kingdom could stem from Alexander’s conquest. In the second century B.C., the extreme antipathy Antiochus IV showed the Jews could have provided impetus for the composition of this apocalypse. Antiochus pushed his program of Hellenization (1 Macc. 1:11–15), sold the high priesthood (2 Macc. 4:7–10), and plundered the Jerusalem temple (1 Macc ...
... The Priests at Nob: 21:1–9 Having accepted that Saul’s enmity was fixed and that exile was the only option, David sought initial supplies from the priest at Nob. Ahimelech’s wariness on David’s arrival may have reflected an awareness of Saul’s antipathy toward David and a fear of getting involved in a power dispute. However, it is equally possible that Ahimelech’s expression of ignorance in 22:14–15 was the truth and his fear was that David would bring Philistine troops in his wake. David’s ...
... The Priests at Nob: 21:1–9 Having accepted that Saul’s enmity was fixed and that exile was the only option, David sought initial supplies from the priest at Nob. Ahimelech’s wariness on David’s arrival may have reflected an awareness of Saul’s antipathy toward David and a fear of getting involved in a power dispute. However, it is equally possible that Ahimelech’s expression of ignorance in 22:14–15 was the truth and his fear was that David would bring Philistine troops in his wake. David’s ...
... of men for horses—i.e., selling Israelites as mercenary soldiers in exchange for horses. Solomon exchanged Israelite towns for timber (1 Kgs. 9:11–14), and there is some hint that he may have traded in this manner so as to acquire horses (1 Kgs. 10:26–29). The antipathy to any return to Egypt is echoed in the prophets who condemned reliance on Egypt and/or horses and chariots (cf. Isa. 2:7; 30:1–7; 31:1–3; Jer. 2:18, 36; Hos. 14:3; Mie. 5:10). There is no direct record of the saying attributed to ...
... of men for horses—i.e., selling Israelites as mercenary soldiers in exchange for horses. Solomon exchanged Israelite towns for timber (1 Kgs. 9:11–14), and there is some hint that he may have traded in this manner so as to acquire horses (1 Kgs. 10:26–29). The antipathy to any return to Egypt is echoed in the prophets who condemned reliance on Egypt and/or horses and chariots (cf. Isa. 2:7; 30:1–7; 31:1–3; Jer. 2:18, 36; Hos. 14:3; Mie. 5:10). There is no direct record of the saying attributed to ...
... of men for horses—i.e., selling Israelites as mercenary soldiers in exchange for horses. Solomon exchanged Israelite towns for timber (1 Kgs. 9:11–14), and there is some hint that he may have traded in this manner so as to acquire horses (1 Kgs. 10:26–29). The antipathy to any return to Egypt is echoed in the prophets who condemned reliance on Egypt and/or horses and chariots (cf. Isa. 2:7; 30:1–7; 31:1–3; Jer. 2:18, 36; Hos. 14:3; Mie. 5:10). There is no direct record of the saying attributed to ...
... of Gera . . .”) clearly implies that it is indeed this same Shimei who has joined Solomon’s party, and it is the natural assumption of the reader who has read thus far in Samuel—Kings. His presence in the Solomonic party is sufficiently explained by his likely antipathy to the Judean Adonijah, a king not likely to favor someone from Saul’s clan. Solomon is perhaps nothing more to him than the lesser of two evils. On the likelihood that Nathan was a prophet from the pre-David city of Jebus (2 Sam. 5 ...
A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy.
Sympathy constitutes friendship; but in love there is a sort of antipathy, or opposing passion. Each strives to be the other, and both together make up one whole.
... trust in God for one’s safety (29:24–25; cf. 28:25). Although people may think that a personal meeting with a ruler will guarantee the meeting of their needs, justice comes from God alone (29:26). In light of the divine standards emphasized in this section, the mutual antipathy between the righteous and the wicked is easy to understand (29:27; cf. 29:10).
... trust in God for one’s safety (29:24–25; cf. 28:25). Although people may think that a personal meeting with a ruler will guarantee the meeting of their needs, justice comes from God alone (29:26). In light of the divine standards emphasized in this section, the mutual antipathy between the righteous and the wicked is easy to understand (29:27; cf. 29:10).