... is actually a collection of material preserved in connection with that early Passover visit, not all of it directly related to the controversy over the Sabbath and over Jesus’ authority as the Son. It is entirely possible that traditions of Jesus defending his authority against bitter opponents were remembered and handed down alongside traditions in which he unmasked the pretensions of some who aspired to be his disciples. Verses 41–44 show traces of belonging to the second category, but in the present ...
... a beginning, a certain duration, and a definite end. When it is finished, those who have heard his words will be divided, like his followers in chapter 6, into believers and unbelievers. The basic division exists already. Even before Jesus arrives, some in the city are defending him as a good man while others denounce him as a deceiver of the people (v. 12; for similar disputes about Jesus, cf. 7:40–43; 9:16; 10:19–21). Jesus comes not only for self-disclosure but to make known as well “the thoughts ...
... the voice of God, as if he himself were “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (cf. Exod. 3:6). The use of the “I am” form in relation to Abraham recalls Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees in the synoptic Gospels, where he defended the belief in a future resurrection (Mark 12:18–27 and parallels). Jesus’ argument on that occasion was that God had said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and that God was “not the God of the dead ...
... belonged and which he perhaps founded, writing either shortly before or shortly after his death. One of them adds a final word on behalf of the group in verse 25, a postscript modeled to some extent on 20:30. Its apparent purpose is to defend the Gospel against charges of incompleteness, or criticisms that this or that favorite or familiar story about Jesus (perhaps especially from the synoptic traditions) has been omitted. The I suppose with which the scribe brings the Gospel to an end allows him to stand ...
... to see this meaning here—as though Paul had a wife resident in Philippi (who but Lydia?) and begged her to help settle the disagreement between Euodia and Syntyche. This interpretation was apparently approved by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3.6.53.1) and defended by Erasmus; cf. also E. Renan, St. Paul, p. 76; S. Baring Gould, A Study of St. Paul (London: Isbister, 1897), pp. 213–16. But the adjective loyal or “genuine” gnēsie, vocative) that qualifies syzygos here is certainly masculine. The idea ...
... to be prophetically inspired by the Spirit (4:1–2; R. A. Culpepper, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, Knox Preaching Guides (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), pp. 20–21. Jesus’ role as paraklētos is in contrast to Satan’s: “Believers now have someone who defends them before God instead of accusing them” (Brown, Epistles, p. 217; cf. Matt. 10:32). The name “Satan” means “accuser” (cf. Job 1:6–12). 2:2 See the history of the debate over the meaning of hilasmos in Brown, Epistles, pp. 217–22. First ...
... separation here between Christ and God in the writer’s mind (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, pp. 145–47. 3:3 Brown argues that the him in v. 3 is a reference to God (Epistles, p. 397). Bruce, Epistles, p. 88, and Stott, Letters, pp. 124–25, defend “Christ” as the intended referent; and Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 149, sees “God in Christ” as the best solution. 3:4 This is the only occurrence of anomia in the Gospel and letters of John. The Johannine literature does not usually measure the rightness or ...
... will presumably continue. “We are to ‘keep ourselves,’ even if the Son of God ‘keeps’ us” (Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John, p. 309; cf. 5:18, using tērei; cf. Jude 21, 24). What are the idols from which the writer wants his readers to defend themselves? The answer must be sought in the context of 1 John itself, since it is unlikely that the Elder would introduce a warning against pagan idolatry in the last verse of a closely unified exhortation. Westcott defines idolatry as anything which takes the place ...
... It is because they went out (exēlthon; same verb as in 1 John 2:19; 4:1; and 2 John 7 in reference to the secession and mission activity of the Elder’s opponents) for the sake of the Name. They were advancing its cause, proclaiming its truth, and defending it from attack and misunderstanding. Therefore, they are to be cared for as God’s representatives. This use of the term the Name was common in the OT and in Judaism as a reference to God. It was a way of speaking of God without using the sacred Name ...
... silent to the rest of humanity. Moreover, it appears that God honored Abimelech for his efforts to promote a high standard in his realm. Thus God intervened to prevent him from violating his own integrity. In response to God’s warning, Abimelech vigorously defended his integrity to God. Appealing to God’s justice, he asked if God would destroy an innocent nation. He referred to the “nation” instead of to him-self, because as king he knew that whatever would happen to him would happen to his people ...
... 21:25–26 Taking advantage of Abimelech’s friendly demeanor, Abraham presented a formal complaint about a well seized by his servants. Abraham asserted his claim to this well and tested Abimelech’s purpose for entering into a covenant relationship. Abimelech defended himself from any wrongdoing in this matter by stating his ignorance about this deed. Since Abraham had not informed him, there had been no opportunity for him to correct this matter. Indirectly, he conceded the well to Abraham. 21:27–34 ...
... He took immediate action against Joseph, putting him in prison in the section of Pharaoh’s prisoners. That Potiphar did not have him executed shows that he still favored him. Either he did not fully believe his wife’s accusation or Joseph had defended himself convincingly. Regardless, Joseph’s descent from overseer to prisoner was another hardship on his path to becoming a leader. 39:21–23 The prison was under Pharaoh’s control (40:3, 7). There Yahweh continued to be with Joseph, blessing whatever ...
... us to the question of whether there can be a modern-day “just war.” It may well be the case that God can use one nation (or several) as the agent of divine judgment on another nation through war, for the restraining of evil (“defending the bad against the worse,” as it has been called) or the relative (and usually highly ambiguous) righting of wrongs. But even where such a view is taken of a particular conflict, our text warns against the facile assumption that righteousness adorns the victorious ...
... the joyful worship and feasting in the presence of God. In this way Israel would add yet another dimension to the multiple ways in which their national life was intended to imitate and mirror what Yahweh was like and had done. For did not Yahweh himself defend the cause of the widow and orphan? Did not Yahweh also love the aliens, feeding and clothing them (Deut. 10:18)? No worship, then, that claims to love God but excludes those whom God loves can be acceptable to God—a point that the prophets expressed ...
... as far as possible. If we ask whose interests this law serves, the answer is clearly the female captive. If we ask whose power is being restricted, the answer, equally clearly, is the victorious soldier. The law is thus a paradigm case of the OT’s concern to defend the weak against the strong, war being one of the most tragic human expressions of that situation. There are four ways in which this law benefits the captured woman, (a) She is not to be raped or to be enslaved as a concubine, but is to be ...
... by take the man and punish him, v. 18), a fine that is double the average bridal gift (cf. v. 29), and the loss of any right of subsequent divorce. The law is thus a strongly protective measure for a young wife at her most vulnerable. It not only defends her good name (vv. 14, 19) but also provides for her future security against his likely desire to divorce her. The law takes the view that the security and provision of a household—even in the home of such a man—is preferable to the insecurity of a ...
... day of mind-numbing violence, from muggings, rape, and robbery in “civilized” cities, to horrendous war crimes around the world, it is difficult to know how to cope with such reality alongside our faith in the God who cares for the weak and claims to defend the defenseless. We know that the command to exterminate the Amalekites is no longer the way for the disciples of Christ. Yet we affirm the reality of God’s sovereign historical justice and the reality of judgment to come on those who persist, with ...
... 10), or that “her body will be like refuse . . . so that no one will be able to say ‘This is Jezebel’ ” (9:37), but these things are implicit in the statement that “dogs will devour Jezebel” (1 Kgs. 21:23; 2 Kgs. 9:10, 36). 9:14 Defending Ramoth Gilead: The preceding narrative has not told us about an Israelite recovery of the city. Perhaps we are meant to think that it was abandoned in the course of the general Aramean retreat in 7:3ff. Such “gaps,” which the reader must fill in order fully ...
... of 2 Sam. 7 (7:14–15). 21:12 Ears . . . will tingle: The expression appears in 1 Sam 3:11 and Jer. 19:3, which also describe human reaction to bad news. The verb (Hb. zll) is rare, and translation requires educated guesswork. It is difficult to defend tingle, however, for all that its history is older than the NIV (cf., e.g., the RSV). If a physiological reaction is in mind, Hab. 3:16 (where zll appears alongside rgz, “be agitated, quiver, quake”) suggests that “quiver” would be better. It is more ...
... meant every hallelujah and every amen. The problem was that their sincerely meant worship was not accompanied by a commitment to Yahweh in life in society. The hands raised in prayer are full of blood, the blood of people victimized in the community. Zion is supposed to defend the weak (v. 17), but the needs of the weak in society have been ignored, so they fail to get enough to eat, or they lose their land and thus their livelihood, and in due course their lives. As in modern societies, the well-off lived ...
... of Yahweh’s purposefulness was also central). So it is here. The whole of chapters 29–32 will combine the assertion that Yahweh plows with the promise that Yahweh also sows, that Yahweh has a time to attack and also a time to defend, that Yahweh uses moderation even with the rougher processes of dealing with Judah. This parable declares, allusively, that there is a positive purpose behind the strange destructive work in which Yahweh is engaged, which parallels the promise regarding Ephraim in verses 5 ...
... message, this time recalling 29:1–8 with its address to “God’s lion” (but here Yahweh has become the lion) and its subtly-achieved move from threat to encouragement, from Yahweh’s attacking Jerusalem (it is the lion’s prey!) to Yahweh’s defending it. The expression do battle on Mount Zion is the one that meant “fight against Mount Zion” in 29:8. As well as being like a lion, Yahweh is like a mother bird. Admittedly, the comparison with birds hovering overhead is not inherently reassuring ...
... than Isaiah’s day and are presumably the words of later prophets. 34:1–3 A vision of Edom’s judgment begins with a summons to sacrifice. The nations are summoned to court—but not to a trial, where they would have at least the theoretical chance to defend themselves (cf. passages such as 41:1–4). Their guilt is assumed. The court meets purely for the determination of punishment. There is a gruesome contrast between the summons of the earth and all that is in it here and the one that will come in 42 ...
... falls on his face and cries out in protest: “Ah, Sovereign LORD! Will you completely destroy the remnant of Israel?” (v. 13). In the following verses (vv. 14–21), the Lord responds to Ezekiel’s outcry. The first order of business is to defend God’s justice. The arrogant claims of those who remain in Jerusalem regarding the exiles, including Ezekiel, stand as a further reason for God’s condemnation: “Son of man, your brothers—your brothers who are your blood relatives and the whole house of ...
... calls to mind a central theme of Israel’s wisdom literature: that sin carries within it its own consequences. So, for example, Proverbs 22:8 declares, “He who sows wickedness reaps trouble.” Christian readers will think of Jesus’ words to one who attempted to defend him from the mob in Gethsemane: “‘Put your sword back in its place,’ Jesus said to him, ‘for all who draw the sword will die by the sword’” (Matt. 26:52). Edom and Philistia, having taken vengeance against Judah, are in turn ...