... , expressed best by the gnostic teaching of the Nicolaitans at Ephesus and Pergamum and by the prophecies of “Jezebel” at Thyatira, is to differentiate between the “spiritual” and the “material.” That is, Christian spirituality is reduced to an exclusive concern for the personal and internal, or for the intellectual and religious aspects of human existence. Definitions of Christian discipleship exclude the sociopolitical (e.g., how one views the state and its public policy) or socioeconomic (e.g ...
... grain offering serves the practical function of providing the priests with food. 2:4 While verses 1–3 appear to relate to uncooked grain offerings, verse 4 begins a longer instruction on cooked or baked grain offerings. No incense is included; Milgrom has suggested that the exclusion is a concession to the poor since the incense was expensive (Leviticus 1–16, p. 183). The first type of baked grain offering is one baked in an oven. It could be in the form of a cake mixed with oil or wafers (thin cakes ...
... her womb, and it is only God who can open it. Hannah’s prayer is not meant to be a bribe to God: “give me a son and I promise I’ll give him back.” Hannah’s longing for a son may have been inherently selfish, but it was not exclusively so. Rather, Hannah is communicating her personal longing for a son and her genuine desire to dedicate to the Lord all that he gives her, including her son (she assumes that a son is necessary for her to do this). The prayer expresses no doubt that God will understand ...
... aside. To make this more likely he sends back the loyal Hushai as a spy, or rather as an agent provocateur. Zadok, Abiathar, and their sons could then provide a back-up unit. Trusting in God and organizing resistance are not presented as mutually exclusive options. Absalom, secure in his own confidence, had already seen Ahithophel defecting to his side. There was no reason for him to doubt that Hushai had also recognized his superior qualities and done the same. But Hushai remained David’s friend. 16:1 ...
... in “That day” and will claim it. This is a rather negative use of the verb gʾl, often used to describe divine “redemption.” Rather than pray that God redeem him, Job desires that “darkness” will buy back the day of his birth for its exclusive use. Job concludes his curse on “That day” with the summative hope that it will be shrouded in perpetual cloud and that an eclipse of the sun bring startling terror. 3:6–7 Job pronounces an equally scathing curse on that night, wanting to blot his ...
... of the ancient fathers and sages. What seems to be a parenthetical statement separates the call to “listen” from the proclamation of what Eliphaz has “seen.” The statement in verse 19 proceeds from the reference to their fathers and describes an exclusive claim to the land at a time when no alien passed among them. The reference, if taken as the land promised to the fathers of Israel, represents a somewhat awkward statement in the face of the consistently non-Israelite identification of Job ...
... raises before Job’s final reply in chapter 42. The theophany has clearly made the point, however, that God remains fully in control of the universe he created. His purposes and concerns are often beyond human knowing, and they certainly are not exclusively focused on humans and their benefit. The world is larger than Job and his friends ever imagined, but this realization emphasizes God’s immensity and power even more. The book turns now to consider how Job responds to this experience of God. Additional ...
... to fall for them an inheritance with a boundary line” (cf. Josh. 17:5). A more literal translation of verse 5a of our psalm is, “the LORD is the part of my portion” (not you have assigned me). Here the psalm makes a claim that is elsewhere exclusive to the Levites. They are said to have no portion or inheritance in the land; rather Yahweh is to be “your portion and your inheritance” (Deut. 10:9; Num. 18:20). In material terms, “they shall live on the offering made to the LORD” (Deut. 18:1 ...
... have the obligation to conform to the nature and will of the Creator. That obligation is expressed in different ways at various stages of God’s self-revelation. When the law was given through Moses, the responsibility was primarily, although not exclusively, external. What Jesus now teaches is that outward conformity is not enough: there must be a change within that makes external restriction theoretically unnecessary. Human beings will always be under the obligation to conform to God’s nature. With the ...
... 12). Both of these features are prominent in psalms reflecting wisdom influence (Pss. 34; 37; 112; 119). “Fearing” the Lord (vv. 25:12, 14) is also a recurring motif in wisdom psalms (19:9; 34:7, 9, 11; 112:1; Ps. 119, five times; cf. 145:19), though not exclusive to them. The concern for inheriting the land is an important motif in Psalm 37 (vv. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34). Psalm 25 also reflects a keen awareness of personal sin (vv. 7, 11, 18). Generally among the psalms, those that speak of sin as part of the ...
... ,” 26:3 // 15:4, lit. “despised in his eyes”; 36:1–2; cf. 5:5), and a judgment that distinguishes the fates of the speaker and the wicked (26:1, 9 // 5:8, 10). These psalms of temple entry emphasize the reverse of Psalms 15 and 24, that is, the exclusion of the wicked from Yahweh’s holy place (5:4–6, 10; see also 36:1–4, 7–12; 52:1–6, 8). The petition, “Do not take away my soul along with sinners,” is very similar to the one found in 28:3. Thus, the concern for the wicked ...
... :3–4 in its assessment of one’s character refers to the same bodily parts as 24:4: hearts and hands (Hb. yad in 28:4, kap in 24:4). Other psalms that probably belonged to these entry liturgies emphasize the other side of Psalms 15 and 24, namely the exclusion of the wicked from Yahweh’s holy place: “the wicked . . . cannot stand in your presence” (5:4–6, 10; see also 26:8–9; 36:1–4, 7–12; 52:1–6, 8). Seen in the light of these liturgies, the issue behind Psalm 28 may be, “Who may live ...
... fathers” but the chain of ancestors.) You drove out the nations and planted our fathers points to the days of the conquest. Verses 2–3 emphasize God’s agency (with your hand, your right hand, your arm, and the light of your face) to the near exclusion of human effort (not by their sword, nor did their arm; cf. 33:16–17). Verses 4–8 (five Hb. lines) contain a confession of trust made before the battle. The confession for this generation (note my King) is modeled on the report heard from previous ...
... trace its use by Jesus back to the apocalyptic figure in Daniel 7. This “one like a son of man” who comes with the clouds of heaven is both individual (Dan. 7:13–14) and corporate (Dan. 7:27). Within the Gospels the term is used exclusively by Jesus as a self-designation (twenty-nine times in Matthew alone). At times it is used in connection with the sufferings of Jesus during his earthly existence; elsewhere it is found in passages that emphasize the glory of his triumphant return at the end of ...
... demons that Jesus had performed the exorcism. The contrast in how the healing was perceived is Matthew’s major point. Additional Notes 9:34 This verse is omitted by a number of manuscripts, but most textual scholars accept its inclusion. Metzger notes that the evidence for the shorter text is exclusively Western and that the passage seems to be needed to prepare the reader for 10:25 (TCGNT, pp. 25–26).
... 3). The next section narrates this event of Yahweh’s defense of Zion. 76:4–10 This evidence is unpacked as praise addressed directly to Yahweh. With this turn to praise there is no subsequent mention of Zion or its distinctive privileges—attention is focused exclusively on God. The Hebrew text of verse 4 is somewhat problematic. We should perhaps read, “You are feared (cf. v. 7, nôrāʾ instead of nāʾôr), more majestic than the everlasting mountains” (see LXX and cf. Deut. 33:15; Hab. 3:6). In ...
... field”; Exod. 23:16; cf. Lev. 23:39; Deut. 16:13, 15). 81:6–10 This portion of the oracle focuses on Yahweh’s liberation from Egyptian slavery and his answering his people’s calls from distress (vv. 6–7), and on his consequent demand for exclusive loyalty (vv. 8–10). The pivot determining Israel’s destiny is their act of listening. As Yahweh had answered his people when they called, so my people are implored to listen to me (vv. 7–8), “but my people would not listen to me” (v. 11). In ...
... been suggested as the liturgist. While this is certainly possible, several factors indicate otherwise. First, although the king was the commander-in-chief, these verses would be appropriate to any warrior who would testify publicly. There are no claims to exclusively royal prerogatives, as seen in the psalms that are clearly royal. Second, it seems incongruous to propose the king speaks verses 10–12 when the preceding verses disclaim any value to royal position. Third, “the nations” may refer not to ...
... are blessed (Hb. ʾašrê). This psalm’s use of earlier scripture, including passages fit for a king, provides a contemporary lesson on how we may apply old passages to new situations. Particularly enlightening is how privileges once thought to be the exclusive prerogative of the elite are democratized to become the privileges of all God’s people, even when in lowly circumstances (as was the postexilic community). Additional Notes The postexilic features of the psalm are several. (a) The use of the Hb ...
... were eunuchs. The Bible gives the same requirement for priests (Lev. 21:17–23) and for sacrificial animals (Lev. 22:18–25). The fact that they were to be handsome shows a perceived relationship between beauty and divine favor. This way of thinking was not exclusive to Babylon. Even though 1 Samuel 16:7 warns against looking on the outward appearance as a sign of God’s election, a few verses later David is described as having “a fine appearance and handsome features” (1 Sam. 16:12; see also 17:42 ...
... of the object, so we cannot be sure that it was in the king’s likeness. Finally, there are other points of disjuncture between chapter 3 and the earlier traditions. While chapter 2 is mainly about Daniel, with brief appearances by his friends, chapter 3 is exclusively about the three friends. Whereas earlier they are described as “young men” (1:4, 10, 13, 15, 17), here they are “men” (3:13, 21, 23, 24, 25). Before this, they are known by both their Babylonian and Hebrew names; here, only by their ...
... have proscribed prayer to other gods. It is even more incredible that they would disallow petitions to humans other than the king. The Persians did not divinize their kings, and even ancient Near Eastern cultures that did, such as the Egyptians, did not demand exclusive worship of any one god (with the exception of Pharaoh Akhenaten), much less of the king. Again, it makes more sense if we consider that Darius may be a symbol for Antiochus IV, whose policy amounted to exalting himself above the one true God ...
... Jesus predicts this event as part of the divine plan, in a more profound sense it is really God who will give up his Son to the judgment of hostile human courts (lit., into the hands of men, see note). This teaching is mentioned as reserved exclusively for his disciples (9:30), but we are also told that the disciples did not grasp what he was saying and were fearful to press the matter (9:32). The dullness of the disciples that Mark consistently emphasizes and that caused a rift between Jesus and Peter ...
... saying that the well-to-do (presumably Jewish) ignore the invitation (vv. 18–20), whereas the poor and the sick of the town (v. 21; also presumably Jewish), and those out in the roads and country lanes (v. 23; presumably Gentiles, though not necessarily to the exclusion of Jews) accept the invitation and so enjoy the banquet. As in 4:16–30, the thrust of the Parable of the Great Banquet is found in its challenge to assumptions about election; that is, those who are well off and apparently blessed may be ...
... of the book suggests that the camp is ready to move again, but the events in chapter 20 delay any progress, and the loss of the exodus generation becomes more pressing with the deaths of two of its leaders. This chapter accounts for the exclusion of Moses and Aaron from the land. The movement of the wilderness generation is slow and painful, and frequently interrupted by trouble. 20:14–21 From Kadesh, Moses sends a diplomatic note to the ruler of Edom requesting passage toward Palestine. The form of ...