... no accident that their hope to deceive (from pth) him and prevail (from ykl) over him repeats the language by which he accused God in verse 10. But it is God who has prevailed; thus the next section marshals his divine resources against his hostile friends. 20:11–13 The mood shift between verses 10 and 11 is sudden and unexplained. However, this abruptness is typical of laments in the Psalms as well and could also be explained by the turbulent psychology of someone who undergoes persecution. Though they ...
... a complete end. However, from what we known about their history (see Additional Notes), they often experienced violent ends (sword) either because of pogroms or because Egypt itself, for which the Israelites often served as mercenaries, became the object of hostilities (first with Persia; later in the internecine war between the Seleucids and Ptolomies). They had hoped to avoid sword and famine by fleeing, but because of their actions, disaster will catch up with them. 44:15–19 The people utterly reject ...
... , they preach only peace (šālôm), predicting that the one inquiring of them will have fullness of life and prosperity and a good future (cf. Jer. 6:14; 8:11–12; 28:8–9; Ezek. 13:10). To those who cannot pay them, they declare only hostility and evil to come, waging war against such inquirers by their words, verse 5. Words were considered powerful forces in Israel; they brought about that of which they spoke. Thus, to falsely prophesy evil against a person was to subject the person to dread and fear ...
... is really the sovereign work of the Lord of all. In the agricultural simile employed in verses 12–13, Zion is the threshing floor, and the threshing ox will be the inhabitants of Zion, who will tread out the grain, that is, the life of the hostile nations arrayed against it. Threshing floors were flat, hard, open surfaces on which the cut grain was spread (1 Chron. 21:20–23). The dried stalks were beaten with flails to separate the grain from the chaff, or a heavy board embedded with sharp stones or ...
... are the kinds of things that happen when an army invades another country. The necessity to forbid the destruction of fruit trees in war (Deut. 20:19–20) reflects the fact that this was common practice, through carelessness or as a deliberate act of hostility. And an invading army will likewise kill and eat a country’s animals, without any thought for its future. Habakkuk can imagine the country going through this; and it does, when Babylon invades it. Or perhaps Habakkuk imagines things getting worse as ...
... , isn't it? That is the problem God has with some people. They are so angry, and so bitter, and even so mean that He can't give them the joy of Christ. He can't give them faith and hope and love until they let go of they own hostile feelings. It's also hard for other people to give us anything when we are like that, isn't it? Let's open our fists and open our hearts and let the love of Jesus flow through us to others. Then the world will be a better place for us ...
... response to his ministry according to Luke’s Gospel: “The people were waiting expectantly and were all wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ” (Luke 3:15). The difference in John’s Gospel is a tone of implied hostility, rather than hopefulness. Both Luke and John presuppose considerable prior activity by John the Baptist. He must have attracted considerable attention in order to prompt such questions as Who are you? Are you Elijah? Are you the Prophet? It appears that the ...
... Jew familiar with the Old Testament, such a claim was equivalent to blasphemy (10:33; cf. Exod. 20:3; Deut. 6:4, 13–14). Only once before in the Gospel has Jesus spoken so openly of God as my Father (2:16), and the full extent of the hostility provoked by such language is only now becoming clear. Additional Notes 5:1 A feast of the Jews: The words of the Jews serve as a reminder to Gentile readers of the historical situation. Some manuscripts have the definite article (“the feast of the Jews”), which ...
... religious authorities in Jerusalem had made up their minds to kill Jesus. This was why he remained in Galilee as long as he did (7:1). When he finally decided to go to Jerusalem, “at the Feast the Jews were watching for him” (7:11), apparently with hostile intent. Even the crowds knew that Jesus was a wanted man, though “no one would say anything publicly about him for fear of the Jews” (7:13). Why then the surprise at Jesus’ blunt charge in verse 19 that his hearers wanted to kill him? Are they ...
... believe now, not because of what you said, but because we ourselves have heard him, and we know that he really is the Savior of the world.” What was it that brought Jesus from this place of acceptance and recognition back to a place of hostility and possible death? Not a carefully planned missionary venture, and not a conscious decision to reveal himself one more time in Jerusalem. What brought him back was a response of love to a dear friend’s need (11:3). The narrator pauses to introduce Lazarus (vv ...
... likely that his name was such a household word that people from all over Israel would be asking this question. At any rate, the worshipers described in verses 55–56 (unlike “the Jews” in 7:11, a similar passage in some ways) are not hostile to Jesus, but neutral (more like the “crowds” in 7:12). If they knew where Jesus had previously been staying, they did not tell the authorities. The identification and continuity of the crowds of people mentioned throughout chapter 12 is a difficult matter, and ...
... likely that his name was such a household word that people from all over Israel would be asking this question. At any rate, the worshipers described in verses 55–56 (unlike “the Jews” in 7:11, a similar passage in some ways) are not hostile to Jesus, but neutral (more like the “crowds” in 7:12). If they knew where Jesus had previously been staying, they did not tell the authorities. The identification and continuity of the crowds of people mentioned throughout chapter 12 is a difficult matter, and ...
... ’s presence with the disciples is promised especially in situations of persecution, when they would feel Jesus’ absence most keenly. To this extent the Spirit’s function is the same as it is in the synoptic Gospels: to enable the disciples to stand firm under hostile questioning and to testify faithfully about Jesus to their persecutors (vv. 26–27; cf. Mark 13:11; Matt. 10:19; Luke 12:11–12). Though this is the main import of the promise of the Spirit in its historical and literary context, it is ...
... a beverage among the poor. It was thirst-quenching and was offered to Jesus (probably by the soldiers) as an act of mercy. Though the incident is recorded with Ps. 69:21 in mind, the similarity is only formal because in the psalm “vinegar” is given with hostile rather than merciful intent: “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.” In any case, the purpose of the account in John’s Gospel is not to describe a touching act of love toward Jesus but to emphasize that his real thirst ...
... with one another and attended synagogues where the service was said in Hebrew (as distinct from Hellenists, who spoke only Greek). According to Luke, Paul heard the heavenly voice on the Damascus road address him in Hebrew (Acts 26:14) and could address a hostile Jerusalem crowd impromptu in Hebrew (Acts 21:40; 22:2); in both these places “Hebrew” may be used in a wider sense to include Aramaic. Unlike many Jews of the dispersion, Paul’s family apparently avoided as far as possible assimilation to the ...
... birth. What would be impossible in their own strength is “not burdensome” for those born of God. Indeed, so powerful is the reality of the new birth that the believer (with the community of which the Christian is a part) overcomes the world. Here, the world is that hostile environment in which the Johannine Christians live, but which they are not of (John 17:11, 14, 16). Though God loves it (John 3:16), and Christ died for it (1 John 2:2; 4:9, 14), it has rejected and hates both Jesus and the disciples ...
... of Israel. For example, God smashed the great sea creature by defeating the forces that opposed God’s people (e.g., Ps. 74:13–14; Isa. 51:9–10). Eschatological texts employ the imagery of opposing creatures to describe God’s final defeat of all forces hostile to his rule (e.g., Isa. 27:1). 1:26 With whom did God enter into counsel? There are many proposals: (a) God took counsel with wisdom (Prov. 8:22–31). But this text does not mention wisdom. (b) “We” is a polite manner of self-expression ...
... generation experiences death not as a penalty (2:17) but as a malevolent force destroying the innocent (4:8, 14, 15, 23, 25). The first recorded death is inflicted by one brother against another brother. The theme of an older brother’s hostility toward a younger brother recurs throughout Genesis: Ishmael’s taunting of Isaac (21:9–10), Esau’s threatened vengeance against Jacob (27:41–45), and Jacob’s sons’ plotting to eliminate Joseph (37:20–28). Possibly another death is reported in Lamech ...
... a boat in seven days, Utnapishtim took on board a variety of skilled workers, seemingly with no regard for their character (11:84–85). Utnapishtim, however, duped the people of his city by telling them that he had to leave their city because Enlil had turned hostile to him, while Enlil was going to make them prosper (11:39–47). Just before the deluge Utnapishtim made a great feast with rivers of liquor so that the citizens would not be alarmed by the rising waters (11:70–74). After the flood Enlil ...
... halves so that they faced each other. Birds, being small, usually were not split for sacrifice (Lev. 1:14–17). 15:11 While Abram waited for God to accept the sacrifice, birds of prey came down to consume the carcasses. These birds represent hostile forces opposed to the making of this covenant. Perhaps they are symbolic of the enemies Israel will face in occupying Canaan. Wenham (Genesis 1–15, p. 332) postulates that the birds symbolize Egypt, the nation God would defeat in delivering his people from ...
... testify to God’s blessing him as the angel of Yahweh had promised Hagar (16:10–12). His descendants roamed in the vast area from Havilah (2:11; 10:7), possibly located in Arabia, to Shur in northern Sinai (16:7; 20:1). They, however, lived in hostility toward all their brothers; that is, they were in conflict even with those of similar lineage, as the angel of Yahweh had told Hagar (16:12). Additional Notes 25:13–14 Nebaioth and Kedar are referred to in Isa. 60:7. Esau married the sister of Nebaioth ...
... indicated that Esau was to find his living in a dry land. This blessing would enable him to survive in such a harsh land and prosper to some extent. He would live by his sword and serve his brother. Esau would have the skill to protect himself from hostile groups. Then Isaac gave him the promise that in time he would throw his brother’s yoke from off his neck. Additional Notes 27:39 The wording of Isaac’s blessing for Esau is intentionally vague. One way to read the line is “your abode shall enjoy the ...
... lists were neither expunged nor altered to cast Esau in a bad light. Their inclusion witnesses to the powerful force that tradition had in ancient Israel. It also placed “a check on over-zealous understanding of election” (Brueggemann, Genesis, p. 287). Given the hostility between Israel and Edom during the kingdom period, this material must have been incorporated into Genesis either early or late (Obad.; Ps. 137:7–9). 36:1–5 The basic genealogy of Esau is oriented to his three Canaanite wives: Adah ...
... At the age of seventeen he was shepherding with his brothers; he served as the assistant to his step-brothers by his father’s concubines. When they returned home, Joseph gave his father a bad report about them. In light of the developing hostility of all the brothers toward Joseph, Joseph must have spoken ill of all his brothers, not just those by the concubines. This incident suggests that Joseph continually influenced his father’s attitude negatively toward his brothers. 37:3–4 The Joseph narrative ...
... and philosophies of humankind. Nor is the eschatological hope of Zechariah merely that some day all human beings will profess monotheism of some sort per se. A philosophical monotheism that leaves the divine reality unnamed and characterless is alien (both unknown and hostile) to the OT faith. It is vital to see that, in OT terms, it is Yahweh who defines what monotheism means, not a concept of monotheism that defines how Yahweh should be understood. This has very serious implications for the so-called ...