... camp. Those instructions are in chapter 4 and concern offerings in which blood enters the Tent of Meeting. The priests were not to eat the other parts of the sin offering because they were offered for the priests themselves. The one who disposes of the remains of the sacrifice, here not specified to be a priest, must also wash his clothes and bathe before coming back into the camp. This prevents the spread of contagion from sin and uncleanness, especially in a ritual with the purpose of purifying from such ...
... him in the situation of a death are even more strict than those on the rest of the priests. He is not even to enter a place where there is a dead body. Nor may he participate in the mourning rites for his father or mother. Rather, he is to remain in the sanctuary. The priority for the high priest is maintaining his holiness, for he has been ordained with the anointing oil (see 10:7). The high priest was the one in the community charged with the task of acting in the presence of God. He was a mediator ...
... would have been used at the Canaanite high places, the hill shrines where the idolatrous worship took place. God has promised the land to the people, and so they are now to take possession of the land and settle in it. The concern is that they remain faithful to God. The goal of the destruction of Canaanite religion is to remove it as a temptation to faithlessness. The Priestly tradents understand all too well that such idolatry brings death. Life is found in the loyal worship of Israel’s God, who has ...
... obedience acquiesces to God’s command to give them a king. The implication of the final injunction, Everyone go back to his town, is that such a request might take time, but Samuel had it under control. Whether Samuel was happy with that situation or not remains a matter for conjecture, although 10:19 and 12:17 confirm that he was not. The picture of God not overruling human choices, even when those choices can be shown to be detrimental to his purposes for them, is consistent with the portrayal of God in ...
... point is that they must remember all that is implied in being God’s people. And Samuel, though opting out of the government of the nation and having made his displeasure with their decision clear, is not about to desert them. His roles of praying and teaching will remain. All the necessary information is there for them. If they or their king fail to follow up on that information they will be swept away, but it will not be Samuel’s fault. He has done all in his power to point them to God and to inform ...
... the rest. The phrase the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul may mean that his spiritual or charismatic power had disappeared. However, the comment follows the statement that David had received the Lord’s Spirit and may record that although Saul remained king, he could no longer function as a representative of God. David had replaced him in that role and would eventually replace him as king. What characterizes Saul now are terrible depressive moods that are depicted as the result of an evil spirit ...
... out of the country, the heart has gone out of Saul’s desperate clinging to power. The reader is no longer in any doubt about the eventual outcome. It is appropriate, therefore, that the death of Samuel should be noted. Whatever vestige of power remained with Samuel has gone forever. Neither David nor Saul could seek out his advice. But Samuel had played a long, significant, and valued part in Israel’s history, and the whole nation mourned for him, a fitting epitaph for a great Israelite. His burial ...
... ’s presence in Jerusalem at this time was unusual. The fighting season has begun, but at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab. That is, he did not go himself, and the verse stresses that while the army was destroying Rabbah, . . . David remained in Jerusalem. While his men risked their lives on his behalf, he was “killing time” (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, p. 231) as he walked around on the roof. Joab’s feelings about this are revealed in 12:27–28, when he eventually managed to persuade ...
... it may be that a different measure was used and that the royal standard provided a lesser weight than the sanctuary shekel. 14:27 18:18 states that Absalom had no sons at that stage. The mention of the daughter’s name in this verse, whereas the sons remain anonymous, may be because all of his sons died in infancy. However, as Tamar was given the same name as her poor, desolate aunt, it may be included to show that in spite of her unmarriageable state, the older Tamar was not forgotten. 14:33 The parallels ...
... but Nahash is not a woman’s name. It has been suggested that as another Nahash is mentioned in v. 27, what we have here is a copyist’s error that has been incorporated into the main text. Joab still controlled those troops who had remained loyal to David, which appears to have been a good proportion of the standing army. However, Absalom presumably had control of large numbers of Israelites who were pressed into military service only at times of emergency. In his capacity of managing these troops, Amasa ...
... Job notes that the power for change—and with it hope—was taken away when his success was driven from him. Fickle Friendship 6:14 Job turns now to castigate his friends for their failure of true friendship. In a rather shocking statement, he claims that true friends would remain loyal even if their companion went so far as to forsake the fear of the Almighty. It is Job’s fear of God (1:9) that has been at issue in the test of suffering, and now Job hints that his will to fear may be eroding. Intense ...
... too wonderful” for Job to know (v. 3), Job is ready to admit his limited understanding and the futility of his demand that God reply to his complaint (13:22). God has replied, but even so, the answer so far exceeds Job’s expectations that it remains beyond human understanding. 42:5 My ears had heard of you. Having now seen God face-to-face, so to speak, Job realizes how all his former knowledge of God approached unsubstantiated hearsay. Job knew about God previously, but now my eyes have seen you. He ...
... :1 says, “in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim,” it means 605 B.C. rather than 606 B.C., and if it intends the later part of 605, Nebuchadnezzar really was king and there is no discrepancy. The above harmonization is possible, but it remains speculative, because we do not know what methods of counting Daniel and Jeremiah were using. Also, Jeremiah 46:2 is similar to Jeremiah 25:1 in designating Nebuchadnezzar as king, and in having the date given as the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Yet Jeremiah 46:2 ...
... the temple would be destroyed (Matt. 24:1–2). Furthermore, the “temple” of which Jesus spoke in John 2:19 was “his body” (note John 2:21). 26:62–68 The high priest asked Jesus if he had any answer to the accusation made against him, but Jesus remained silent. This impressive refusal to speak on his own behalf moved the high priest to put Jesus under oath and demand that he acknowledge whether or not he was the Christ, the Son of God. It was against all the procedures of Jewish law to require a ...
... Persian period, its message spoke to the Jews living in the Hellenistic era who were being persecuted by Antiochus IV. They trusted that God would intervene miraculously in their day as he had in the time of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. But if not, they remained as resolute as those three, preferring to die a martyr’s death than to yield to the pressure of the king by worshiping idols. The author was not naive in thinking that God’s people would always be rescued, for it is clear that he expected ...
... as in the NIV (although a few ancient manuscripts have “you”). The text continues in the third person until the end of verse 13. 9:12 The NIV incorrectly switches back to the second person with you, omitting the pronoun “his,” which modifies “words”; the Hebrew remains in the third person: “He has fulfilled his words.” 9:13–15 In v. 13, the prayer briefly addresses God again in the second person. The third person returns in v. 14. In v. 15, the prayer changes back to the second person and ...
... might be seen as used to handling sacred things. The dedication of Eleazar does not specify that he was a priest, although the name occurs in priestly genealogies (Num. 3:2), but he was set aside for this particular task. In any event, the ark remained in the care of his family for many years, until David decided that it could serve other purposes. Perhaps the safety resulted from a genuine change of attitude on the part of the people (7:2). Additional Notes 6:3–4 Guilt offerings involved reparation ...
... the rest. The phrase the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul may mean that his spiritual or charismatic power had disappeared. However, the comment follows the statement that David had received the Lord’s Spirit and may record that although Saul remained king, he could no longer function as a representative of God. David had replaced him in that role and would eventually replace him as king. What characterizes Saul now are terrible depressive moods that are depicted as the result of an evil spirit ...
... as a fitting epitaph for Saul. His reign had not been without its failures and disasters, but it had not been without achievements either. One of his first acts after being anointed as king was to rescue Jabesh Gilead from the Ammonites (ch. 11). Their gratitude remained strong, and they could not allow Saul’s death to pass without a proper burial showing the respect that they felt he deserved. Additional Notes 31:2 In 14:49 Saul’s sons are named as Jonathan, Ishvi, and Malki-Shua. 1 Chron. 8:33; 9 ...
... told that he burned with anger. He made a legal pronouncement that a man who did such a thing deserve[d] to die and should be made to pay substantial compensation. It says much for David’s character and his basic sense of justice that his outrage remained, even when he came to realize that the story was about himself. 12:7–9 Nathan’s statement, You are the man! must have shocked David. Surely he had never done anything vaguely resembling that. But Nathan presses the point and recounts David’s sin in ...
... it may be that a different measure was used and that the royal standard provided a lesser weight than the sanctuary shekel. 14:27 18:18 states that Absalom had no sons at that stage. The mention of the daughter’s name in this verse, whereas the sons remain anonymous, may be because all of his sons died in infancy. However, as Tamar was given the same name as her poor, desolate aunt, it may be included to show that in spite of her unmarriageable state, the older Tamar was not forgotten. 14:33 The parallels ...
... already on his way to the Father (cf. v. 5: “Now I am going”). The impression of distance is stronger in chapter 17, where consistently Jesus speaks of the disciples in the past tense (e.g., 17:12, “While I was with them”; cf. 17:11, “I will remain in the world no longer … and I am coming to you”). In Luke, it is the risen Jesus who speaks this way (Luke 24:44). In John’s Gospel, at first (lit., “the beginning”) when Jesus was with his disciples probably refers to the time of his public ...
... as if he were reporting about an acquaintance (I know a man). But by verses 5–7a at the latest the reader realizes that verses 2–4 refer to Paul’s own experience, for the apostle boasts in the experience. The reason for this use of the third person remains unclear, although many explanations have been offered. It is perhaps worth pointing out that Jesus, whom Paul otherwise seeks to imitate (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; see below on 12:8), referred to himself in the third person as the “Son of ...
... as if he were reporting about an acquaintance (I know a man). But by verses 5–7a at the latest the reader realizes that verses 2–4 refer to Paul’s own experience, for the apostle boasts in the experience. The reason for this use of the third person remains unclear, although many explanations have been offered. It is perhaps worth pointing out that Jesus, whom Paul otherwise seeks to imitate (cf. 1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10; see below on 12:8), referred to himself in the third person as the “Son of ...
... have been easy prey for intruders. By the writing of 2 Corinthians Paul has already dealt with the faction led by the malefactor (cf. 2:5–6; also 1:13–14). When he comes to Corinth for the third time the apostle plans to deal with the remaining faction that continues to side with the false apostles (12:20–21). Like Moses, however, Paul must be concerned that the whole congregation might sympathize with the rebels, thus precipitating a full-scale purge when he arrives (cf. 10:8; 13:10; Num. 16:41–50 ...