... all this, the readers are to be thankful for what is theirs in Christ and to put out of mind all thoughts of lapsing from their Christianity to their former way of life. Additional Notes 12:25 The a fortiori form of the argument is more obvious from the original, which reads “how much more shall we not escape.” The same verb for see to it (blepō) is used earlier in 3:12 in a similar connection. That the verb for refused (paraiteomai) is the same as that used in v. 19 (NIV’s “begged”) lends some ...
... Persian period, we must consider that evidence points to the final form of the book being from the second century B.C., in which case the book is addressed to the Jews suffering under Antiochus IV. It may not be clear what Daniel 1:8 meant in its original context, but the message it would convey to the Jews just before the Maccabean revolt is very clear. They were forced to eat pork and other unclean meat that had been sacrificed to idols, or they would die (1 Macc. 1:41–64): “But many in Israel stood ...
... to return to Hebrews who may have sold it. Redemption (v. 24) is the buying back of land by the next of kin. That practice is more common than Jubilee, which of necessity would be a later resort. Then any land which has, for whatever reason, not returned to its original owner would do so. The key theological basis for the practice is in verse 23. God is the owner of the land, and so it is not to be sold permanently, that is, it is not to be sold completely or finally or so that it is beyond reclamation. God ...
... heavenly realities in contrast to the face-to-face vision at the Parousia. On Ezek. 1 as the background of 2 Cor. 3:18, see, e.g., Segal, Paul the Convert, p. 60 with n. 94; Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot, p. 212 with n. 22; Seyoon Kim, The Origin of Paul’s Gospel (2d ed.; WUNT 2/4; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1984), pp. 231–33. Cf. a passage from the Visions of Ezekiel referring to what Ezekiel saw “at the river Chebar [Ezek. 1:1],” in Halperin The Faces of the Chariot, p. 230; also p. 265. Cf ...
... tend to view the whole flap about the new one as a tempest in a teapot. The hymns which we now sing are not sacrosanct. Some of us can remember what a battle the 1968 hymnal had in replacing the 1935 version! Hymn-changing and tampering with “the original words” is not a new pastime. It has a long and honorable history. John Wesley did not like the line “Thy saints have dwelt secure” in the hymn “Our God, our help in ages past,” thinking that was too Calvinistic, and so he re-wrote the line to ...
... and lie about it, teach your children to do the same. We dream of a better world; we just can’t get there. We are a mess and have together made a mess of our world. The name that best describes this frustrating and enduring reality is the doctrine of original sin. It is verified daily on the front page of every newspaper. But bad as it is, things are not as bad as we imagine they might be; God has set a gracious restraint on the powers of chaos. Life continues, but nothing is left unaffected by the blight ...
Genesis 2:4-25, Genesis 3:1-24, Romans 5:12-21, Matthew 4:1-11
Sermon Aid
John R. Brokhoff
... it means to be human. Since the fall of humanity, he constantly yields to temptation and sins to the point of total depravity - sin permeates his whole being. Because of this, he needs to be redeemed and reconciled to God that he may live as he was originally created. 2. The nature of sin. What is sin? According to this lesson, sin is yielding to temptation. It is disobedience to God's will: Adam and Eve were told not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Moreover, sin is pride - wishing ...
Genesis 1:1-2:3, Matthew 28:16-20, 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, Psalm 8:1-9
Sermon Aid
Marion L. Soards, Thomas B. Dozeman, Kendall McCabe
... 2:4a on Trinity Sunday? Verse 2 makes reference to the "spirit of God" moving over the face of the waters. Frequently this reference is equated with the Holy Spirit, hence the use of this text on Trinity Sunday to anchor the Godhead in the origins of creation. Such a direct and anachronistic reading of Trinitarian theology presents problems because the "spirit of God" in v. 2 is a much more ambiguous concept in the Old Testament than the third person of the Trinity in Christian theology. In fact, the phrase ...
... and 8:7, 13, where it is said that the former commandments and covenant must give way to the new. Here it is the sacrifices of animals that must give way to the sacrifice of Christ in obedience to God’s will. The will of God referred to in the original quotation (and in its recurrence in v. 9) is identified at the beginning of verse 10 as that by which we have been made holy. In by that will, the last word is the first of three deliberate allusions (in v. 10) in midrashic fashion to the psalm quotation of ...
... is he who is in you than he who is in the world,” a strong incentive to rely on the indwelling Spirit of God. 4:5 While the members of the Johannine community are “from God” (v. 4), their opponents are from the world; it is the source and origin of their thinking, values, and actions. They love the world and all that is in it (2:15–16). Having seceded from the community, they have “gone out into the world” (4:1; 2 John 7). The world is now their base of operations, but it is territory of “the ...
... Scrolls attest to the practice of ritual immersion for religious, ceremonial rites of cleansing in the Qumran community (1QS 3.5–9), and the NT records the ministry of baptism of John the Baptist in the Jordan River. Nevertheless, Paul makes an original set of connections, first, in unifying Israel’s experience of the cloud and the sea; second, in referring to that experience as “baptism”; and, third, in referring to this “baptism” as being baptized into Moses. Paul’s reshaping of the story at ...
... thus far received only silence in reply. The friends have been vociferous in their attempts to undermine Job’s claims. But God, the only party besides Job who can know the truth of the matter, has yet to present evidence. The translation, “let my accuser,” turns the original Hebrew a bit. The more literal meaning is, “the man of my law suit.” It is not so much that Job thinks of God accusing him, as that he is naming God as the other party in his legal action. The Hebrew behind put his indictment ...
... king. He becomes so angry and furious that he orders the execution of all the wise men (2:12). 2:13–23 These verses appear to be either a later addition meant to smooth over differences with chapter 1 or a variant tradition. We would expect that, in the original story, if Daniel was one of the wise men, he would have been summoned with them (2:2). Though Daniel is not presented as a member of this group, he is interested in saving them (2:24). He himself is merely “a man among the exiles” (2:25). He ...
... . Cf. Moran, “Conclusion.” 5:22 Your whole assembly: Deut. likes to use the word qāhāl to signify the wholeness and unity of the people of Israel, just as it frequently uses “all Israel.” It uses it most frequently to refer to the “day” of the great original assembly at Horeb (Sinai), 4:10; 9:10; 10:4; 18:16; and 33:4. Cf. also 23:2–4; 31:12, 30. On the wider OT significance, see Anderson, “Israel: Amphictyony.” Two stone tablets: Cf. Exod. 24:12; 31:18; 32:15f.; 34:1–4, 27f. When the ...
... they treat us in significant ways. "Excuse me, I demand to be given a table at this restaurant immediately! I live in a wealthy suburb!" I don't think so. A shift seems to have taken place, away from one's stature as a function of family and place of origin. These days, stature comes in two forms. One will get you a table. That kind is fame, and who you know. Maybe I'm wrong, because I can't get a good table anywhere, but I think that the main thing that gets people special treatment is, first, that they ...
... in those segments of their lives are what Luther calls "pretended sinners." What does this all mean for the way you live? The first Protestant Reformer says that you will see grace more clearly, be a preacher of a true grace. That is in line with the original version of the parable of the weeds. Its point, recall, was to proclaim that God is realizing his kingdom, is working good among us, despite all the weeds. The pressure is off people who live the life of brave sinning. Brave sinners no longer need to ...
... us of an altar. In fact, even though it looks like a table, we still call it an altar. Perhaps if we knew why it is an altar rather than a table, we would better understand what we are participating in when we gather around it. If we knew its origin, then we would know why it is an altar. As an experiment sometime, when you are at home sitting at the kitchen table with one of your children, ask this question: "Where does that slice of bread in your stomach come from?" You will probably get a variety of ...
... shortcomings are beckoned to come and take a new path. Even in his final human encounter, Jesus offers to the unnamed “criminal” on the cross next to him a transfigured place of peace and paradise. Jesus approached everyone he met Really! as an original sacrament of God with a transfigural future, a future that radically transfigured his or her present straits and straightjackets. Can we greet each and every one we meet as someone real, someone already on a journey to a real, transfigural future? Can we ...
... at which Jesus of Nazareth was actually born, from a spiritual perspective, nothing could better capture the significance of the time of Christ’s birth than to call it “the Night of Light.” Isaiah 9:2-7 This oracle attributed to Isaiah of Jerusalem was not originally a prophecy at all, at least not in the sense that we typically now use the word “prophecy.” That is to say, Isaiah did not compose this poem in order to predict long distant events (the birth of Jesus lay some seven centuries in the ...
... of the new covenant at the end of the apology, as he makes a final appeal to the Corinthians. 6:17abc After the citation of the covenant formula in verse 16, the text goes on in verse 17 to introduce a modified citation of Isaiah 52:11. In its original context, Isaiah 52:11 is an exhortation to the exiles to go out from Babylon (cf. Rev. 18:4), the land of their captivity, and to return in purity to the Holy Land with the temple vessels. Here, however, the passage is crafted to fit the new context in ...
... 6:4), but there is little evidence for Greek religion referring to God as Lord. This suggests that Paul here, as elsewhere (e.g., Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 7:22; 12:3; Phil. 2:11), refers to Jesus Christ’s divinity in a manner that originated in the earliest Jewish Christian communities. By initially describing the faith in terms with which his readers would feel comfortable—either because it is the way he introduced the faith to them or as a result of influences subsequent to his departure—Paul hopes to gain ...
... the truth, which strikes at the heart of faith itself: Rom. 1:27; 1 Cor. 6:9; Gal. 6:7; 1 John 1:8; 4:6; 2 Pet. 2:18; 3:17; and frequently in Revelation. Cf. H. Braun, “Planaō,” TDNT, vol. 6, pp. 242–51. 1:17 The original quotation from which every good and perfect gift is taken may have been, “Every Gift is good and every present is perfect,” which roughly translates “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” James’ change was simply to add from above or “from heaven,” which altered the ...
... . As a result, scholars differ among themselves as to how to divide chapter 4, and yet that division is crucial for the interpretation of the prophet’s message. Should we say that verses 1–3, 4–6, 7–10, 11–14, 15, and 16–19 were all originally independent sayings? Should the chapter be divided into verses 1–3 and verses 4–14, as many commentators divide it? Or should the division be verses 1–3, 4–10, 11–14, and 15–19, again as many scholars make it? For our purposes, we will divide ...
... we have from him.” Does “him” (NIV, he) refer to Jesus’ own linking of these commandments in Matthew 22:34–40 (par. Mark 12:28–31; Luke 10:25–28), or perhaps to the “new commandment” of John 13:34? Or is the Elder referring to God as the origin of this teaching on love for God and neighbor in the Torah (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18)? While the author does not always separate clearly between God and Jesus in his writing, as we noted earlier in several passages (e.g., 1 John 1:5–7; 2:3–6 ...
... its parts are not always easy to unravel. 34:16 The sleek and the strong I will destroy. The NIV, like the NRSV and the NJPS, follows the MT, which reads ʾashmid (“I will destroy”). The LXX, Syr., and Vulg. all read instead “watch over,” assuming an original Heb. ʾeshmor. The two words are nearly identical in Heb. (d and r look a great deal alike), so it is easy to understand a scribe mistaking one for the other. The reading the LXX follows certainly seems a better fit with the context of vv. 11 ...