... of security (vv. 20–21) and the second promises the restoration of creation harmony (vv. 22–23). The result is a continuing argument for Job’s submission to God. In this second set of verses, the harmonious pre-fall creation serves as a model. Like the original humans, Job will need not fear the beasts who will be at peace with Job as with the first humans. Nor will he experience the toilsome relationship with the fallen and cursed earth, since he instead will have a covenant with the stones of the ...
... 1 Sam. 2:10; Pss. 89:17, 24; 92:10; Lam. 2:17). Some commentators relate the thrusting of the horn into the dust with the action of a bull who dips his horns to the ground in submission. Most likely the metaphor—regardless of it precise origin—indicates Job’s capitulation to the attacks against him. He has no hope of defending himself against God. This does not mean that Job has given up his quest for vindication. Instead, it emphasizes the unjust nature of the attack against one who cannot, and does ...
... with him while he is speaking, he is at the same time reminding them of their forgotten responsibility as friends to bear him up in supportive arms of love. After I have spoken, mock on. Job has little confidence that his friends will renew their original supportive care. The matter has gone too far and they are too invested in refuting his threatening words to go back now. Realistically, Job realizes the best he can hope for is their grudging silence while he speaks. Despairing of any change on their part ...
... psalms, which appear to be either morning (3:5; 5:3) or evening psalms (4:8). 6:1–3 This psalm’s appeal is structured around two sets of petitions (vv. 1–3 and 4–7), each with its own supporting reasons. The word order in the original Hebrew reveals the emphasis of the opening petition: “don’t in your anger rebuke me!” The psalm may not shun divine discipline as such, only its being done with hostility. Is this mention of rebuke a tacit admission of sin and guilt, an awareness that one suffers ...
... the world was based on the principle of equal retaliation. It was called lex talionis and dates back as far as Hammurabi, an eighteenth-century B.C. king. It is found three times in the Old Testament (Exod. 21:24; Lev. 24:20; Deut. 19:21). The original intention was to restrict unlimited revenge. It was understood as (only) an eye for eye and (only) a tooth for a tooth. Further, it was never intended as an excuse for individual retaliation; it belonged in the law court and was allowed by a judge. Jesus now ...
... wickedness” because the scepter of God’s kingdom is a scepter of justice. We should also recall that Ps. 45 is part of the Elohistic Psalter (Pss. 42–83), where “the LORD” (“Yahweh”) is sometimes substituted with Elohim. So, v. 6 may have originally read, “Your throne, O LORD,” thus making the change of address obvious. If, however, the king is addressed as ʾelohîm, we should note that he is still reminded that it is “God, your God,” who “has set you above your companions.” The ...
... 1–59, p. 514) have argued that the speaker has been falsely accused and now seeks Yahweh’s acquittal at the “supreme court” of the temple (see further endnote 6 in the Introduction). We must be cautious, however, whenever we try to pin down the original circumstances for which a psalm was composed or to limit its application beyond these circumstances. What may appear to us to be a description of circumstances may instead be a poetic image depicting threat in general. 54:1–5 Psalm 54 is a good ...
... summons is for the congregation to shout, which reveals their exuberant worship. The repeated reference to God’s name (vv. 2, 4) with no explicit reference to “Yahweh” may be explained by the psalm’s location in the Elohistic Psalter. Thus, the psalm in its original form probably read “Yahweh” where it now reads God. How can it be said that all the earth bows down to you; . . . they sing praise to your name (v. 4)? We must recognize that, as an expression of praise, this verse makes a statement ...
... . 4:1–9). They had witnessed his healings and exorcisms, but now they wanted irrefutable evidence that defied natural explanation. Paul speaks of exactly that attitude in 1 Corinthians 1:22, “Jews demand miraculous signs.” Such an attitude does away with faith. It originates not in a desire to know but in the decision not to believe. You are a wicked and adulterous people, responds Jesus. You insist (the NIV’s ask does not do justice to the intensive compound epizēteō) on a miraculous sign as a ...
... 4 The opening verses consist largely of a series of familiar petitions (let me never be put to shame, rescue, deliver (twice), turn your ear, save). The Hebrew text of verse 3 is problematic (the NIV’s rendering is difficult to justify), but it was probably originally identical to 31:2b–3a: “Be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress.” The psalm thus implores Yahweh to actualize in experience what he is confessed to be in praise. Thus, the believer cannot ...
... pp. 141ff.). Many modern commentators have given up any attempt to find what a particular parable may have meant in its original setting and have concentrated on what it probably meant to the Gospel writer. Others believe that, although the parable is ... proclamation of the gospel and therefore a final division between those who belong to the kingdom and those who have their origin in Satan’s activity. The grouping of people into two radically different camps is characteristic of Jewish thought (cf. 1QS 2. ...
... :10–11;) or perhaps simply those that were inedible. Legend (perhaps based on John 21:11) has it that there were 153 different kinds of fish. The Sea of Galilee is said to contain 54 different species. Some writers think that verses 49–50 do not belong to the original parable. In verse 48 the fishermen sit down on the shore and separate the good fish from the bad. In verse 49 the separation is done by angels at the end of the age. It is often mentioned that though bad fish would be thrown back into the ...
... is resignified as “the Christ” or “messiah” and the speaker as David. Thus, David addresses the Christ as “Lord,” implying a relationship of David’s subordination to the Christ. Although Jesus’ use of Ps. 110 is not consistent with its original use as a liturgy addressed to the Davidic kings, his reinterpretation is endorsed by the book of Psalms itself. The historical superscriptions invite readers to re-read the “psalms of David” as those authored by David (see the Introduction). Jesus ...
... —dramatically present.) In effect, they are asked to testify to the “land” (NIV “earth,” v. 7) that there is good reason to respond to God’s appearing as they have. These stylistic features reflect poetic license to impress generations far removed from the original events with the impact of God’s interventions into history and nature. Thus, the key dramatic function of verses 1–6 is to create suspense in the listeners as to the identity of “his” in verse 2 and as to the cause of these ...
... promise of resurrection. Paradidōmi (v. 22) in this context probably means no more than “to be handed over,” although later it came to be part of the theological language of the Passion narrative. Additional Notes 17:21 This verse is omitted by a number of the best manuscripts (the original hand of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.) and was probably assimilated from the Markan parallel (9:29). If the passage was ...
... the righteous may enter.” Later, a speaker says, “Blessed is he who comes,” and then says, “we bless you” (pl. “you all”). The “he” is simply any individual among the “you” group. The best explanation for this combination lies in the liturgical origins of the psalm, where a liturgist speaks on behalf of the congregation. The identity or the social circle of this liturgist has been a matter of debate. Because he appears to represent the people and because of the allusions to military ...
... –8 point to a liturgist (perhaps a priest) and an assembly of pilgrims. Verses 1–2 read as a testimony and verses 3–8 as a priestly assurance to the pilgrims (cf. Ps. 91). The question must remain open as to whether the psalm was used originally on the departure to or from Jerusalem. While the psalm is not a formal priestly blessing (e.g., “may the Lord bless you” or “the Lord bless you”), it does share similarities to the Aaronic benediction (“the LORD bless you and keep [Hb. šmr, the same ...
... , they may be accented by their direct address to him (thematic explanation). Third, the action described in the phrase, “the eyes of all look” to God, implicitly calls for direct address to him (ritual explanation). Fourth, if this psalm was originally sung at a harvest festival, these verses are the expression closest to that occasion (situational explanation). Verse 13a is also a “you” verse and it describes Yahweh’s kingdom. As will be argued below, this verse climaxes the central section ...
... as follows: 7:7d–8, 11a, 20–22, and 24–25 (Hartman and Di Lella, Daniel, pp. 208–10, following Ginsberg, Studies in Daniel, pp. 5–23, 63–75). We cannot be sure that the developmental view is correct. It is possible that the original author used different language when talking about the eleventh king simply because Antiochus IV was different from all previous kings (Collins, Daniel, p. 279). Still, I think there is enough evidence to tip the scales slightly in favor of the two-editions view. If ...
... manuscripts and in view of the fact that it may have been introduced to make Jesus’ emotion here seem more compatible with his stern command in vv. 43–44, it is probably wiser to regard the reading accepted in the text here as the original reading. 1:43 Jesus sent him away … with a strong warning: The stern command described here may seem strange to the reader, but Mark apparently intends to emphasize that the man’s actions were in violation of Jesus’ emphatic instructions. Although Mark says the ...
... to verse 24 because they both deal with prayer. (What appears as v. 26 in some older translations is probably an insertion in some manuscripts made by copyists who were familiar with the parallel saying in Matt. 6:14–15 and is not regarded as part of the original text of Mark; see the NIV marginal note.) Elsewhere in Mark there is a strong emphasis upon the importance of faith (cf. 2:5; 4:40; 5:34; 9:23–24; 10:52), making this one of his favorite themes. Here Mark presents Jesus as an example of ...
... God. Further, the sending of the son is described as the final overture of the owner (v. 6, one left to send, last of all), and this reflects the Christian belief that Jesus is the last and most important messenger from God (see note). In the original situation of Jesus’ ministry, the full significance of the image of the son would not have been felt, but Mark’s readers could not have avoided reading the term in the context of the Christian veneration of Jesus. Additional Notes 12:1 Planted a vineyard ...
... this service for the dead did an act of great piety. 15:45 The body: Here and in v. 43, the Greek manuscripts are divided over the terms used, but most scholars believe that the term “body” is the original reading in v. 43, and that the term for “corpse” is the original term used here. Though the Greek term for “corpse” used here is neuter in gender, Mark consistently uses the masculine pronoun in v. 46. Thus, the NIV translation “it” is literally “him” there. 15:46 Some linen cloth ...
... of David (v. 27), for that ancestry qualifies Jesus for his messianic role and makes what Gabriel says in vv. 32–33 possible. Mary is told that she will have a son and that she is to give him the name Jesus (v. 31, a name which originally meant, “Lord, help!” but had come to be understood as meaning “salvation”; see Matt. 1:21). What Gabriel says in the next two verses echoes the great Davidic covenant of 2 Samuel 7 in which King David is promised that his throne and kingdom would be established ...
... to Abraham (see Gen. 12:3; 17:4–5; 22:18). Reference to God’s promises to Abraham is also made by Zechariah following the birth of John (see v. 73). Additional Notes 1:46 Mary said: Some commentators have maintained that Luke originally composed the Magnificat for Elizabeth, as a parallel to Zechariah’s Benedictus (vv. 68–79), especially since it is Elizabeth, not Mary, who was “filled with the Holy Spirit” (v. 41). Schweizer (p. 15) appears to lean this way. Since no Greek manuscript, however ...