... to lend (v. 9). There is thus a double “push-pull” effect on the hearer. Generosity is commanded on the positive basis of God’s authority, blessing, and gift, and on the negative basis of God’s moral judgment against one who is hostile and grudging to the needy. Furthermore, the rhetoric of the passage is stylistically emphatic. Hebrew gives weight to an imperative or a promise by a double verb form: infinitive plus imperfect (e.g., “giving you shall give,” i.e., “you must surely/freely ...
... and Ammonites from the sacred assembly, but this reason is not explicitly stated. Instead, Deuteronomy draws on the more recent historical experience of the Israelites and pinpoints the Ammonites’ failure to help the needy (Deut. 2:26–30) and the Moabites’ hostility in the attempt to curse Israel (Num. 22–24). Another reason for the exclusion of eunuchs and some foreigners from the sacred assembly may be found in the fact that in preexilic Israel, kinship and land were vital factors in membership ...
... of the king’s sons not involved in the conspiracy and therefore worthy of David’s consideration. Is the “oath” anything more than pillow-talk between David and Bathsheba? Perhaps not, and perhaps the hitherto loyal Joab and Abiathar are not so much hostile to David’s expressed intent in the matter of the succession, as simply in despair over his decaying state and the power vacuum that has resulted from his impotence. Whatever its precise nature, however, the oath has now become the slender peg ...
... ) attempt at national reconciliation (2 Sam. 19:9–20:22)—to which neither of the sons of Zeruiah are apparently sympathetic (19:21–23; 20:8–10)—that David spares his life. Shimei, then, like Joab, represents an element likely to be hostile to a united kingdom under a Davidic king (his temporary allegiance to Solomon in opposition to Adonijah notwithstanding). Between these two disruptive elements from Judah and Israel (2:5–6; 2:8–9) stands Barzillai from Gilead in Transjordan (2:7): a model ...
... not told exactly what happened after Jeroboam received Ahijah’s message. We are told simply that Solomon, aware of the threat, sought Jeroboam’s death only to find his own. Jeroboam escaped to Egypt, and from there he will shortly re-emerge with hostile intent (ch. 12). Like Hadad, he will use the liberation language of Exodus. Jeroboam, however, will be intent on liberating Israel, not from Egypt, but from Judah. Additional Notes 11:14 An adversary: The Hb. here is śāṭān, which in other OT texts ...
... as it implicitly does even in those better NT MSS that read “Beelzebul” instead of “Beelzebub.” It may well be, in fact, that Baal-Zebub is itself a deliberate corruption of “Baal-Zebul” (“Baal the exalted”), intended to express the authors’ scorn of or hostility towards this “deity.” We may note here the analogous substitution of Hb. bōšeṯ, “shame,” for Baal in 2 Sam. 2:8 (cf. 1 Chron. 8:33) and 2 Sam. 11:21 (cf. Judg. 6:32); and the substitution of Hb. šiqquṣ, “detested ...
... and—remembering the context in which the chapter is narrated—his promise to Jehu (2 Kgs. 10:30). The impetus of that recovery continues now into chapter 14, as the house of Jehu brings Israel relief, not only from Aram, but also from a foolishly hostile Judah. 14:1–6 The introductory regnal formulas for Amaziah are the standard ones for relatively good (non-idolatrous) kings of Judah: he did what was right (v. 3) but failed to centralize the worship of the LORD in Jerusalem (the high places . . . were ...
... kings in 1 Kgs. 15:16ff.; 22:48–49; etc.). The clock has not been turned back that far, not even for David’s greatest successor. In these days foreigners surveying Jerusalem’s splendor do not simply marvel. Now we expect them to return with hostile intent. What Hezekiah’s Babylonian visitors saw, Isaiah tells the king, they will one day take away to the distant land from which they have come (vv. 14, 16–18; cf. 1 Kgs. 8:46), along with some of the king’s descendants. Hezekiah is surprisingly ...
... a result of the ministry he sought to exercise to his own people, and like Jeremiah he has shown none of the deceitfulness of the well-to-do wicked leaders of Judah (see Jer. 5:27; 9:6–8). Unlike Jeremiah, he uttered no word of hostility or aggression in response to his treatment. Who is this man? 53:10–12 The fifth assumption was that the servant was therefore a self-appointed martyr. On the contrary, his suffering came about by Yahweh’s will. That immediately modifies two earlier observations. First ...
... , the closest parallel here is Hosea 9:8, which states that “The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim.” Here as there, God gives the prophetic watchman no assurance of success; indeed, Hosea records, so great is the wickedness and hostility of the people of Israel that “the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac” (Hos. 9:7). As a watchman, Ezekiel is responsible for warning the wicked of God’s approaching judgment. Should he fail to do so, the wicked will ...
... the division of the land sets out to right old wrongs. God gives every tribe the same inheritance. This plan moves the Transjordanian tribes west, undoing the faithlessness of their ancestors that had placed them there (Num. 32:8–15) and the regional hostilities that placement had historically caused (e.g., 1 Sam. 11:1–11). The plan moves Judah north, correcting ancient resentments on the part of the northern tribes of the ruling house’s southern bias. Still, the location of the temple on Zion remains ...
... temptation is amazingly brief, just a few short sentences. While the temptation by Satan is the central part, the interesting addition is the mention of the wild animals. It is debated whether this continues the idea of the wilderness testing, with the animals as hostile predators,1or whether this is part of a “paradise” theme, as the animals are reconciled (Isa. 11:6–9) and the wilderness transformed with Jesus, the new Adam.2As part of a new creation theme, the latter view has merit. There are two ...
... to Jerusalem, and as a result it was done “as a testimony” to the people that the formerly leprous person indeed was allowed to resume a normal life. In Mark 6:11 (shaking the dust off one’s feet) and 13:9 (answering charges from hostile officials) there was a negative cast to this “witness,” but here it is not confrontational but rather positive, obeying the regulations of Torah. 1:45 stayed outside in lonely places. This does not mean that Jesus had a “lonely” life. This once more was the ...
... a family of those who love one another and are deeply involved with each other. 2. Following Jesus entails the possible loss of earthly family ties. Jesus said, “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34), referring to the severe hostility, even martyrdom, that following him might entail. There is peace with God but often little peace on the earthly side. In fact, the penalty for being a Christian may be that the instigators in martyrdom are one’s own family, as stated in Matthew 10 ...
... bargain for their freedom. Jesus’s purpose here is to show everyone the nature of the forces arrayed against them. The thrust of “Legion” is not the exact number of the soldiers but rather the large number (“we are many”) and the image of a hostile army bent on destruction.6It is possible also that the name is meant to picture the demons (like Rome in Palestine) occupying the man. 5:12 Send us among the pigs. The presence of a large herd of unclean pigs provides a perfect abode for “unclean ...
... of his former friends and neighbors. Amazement frames this episode. As Robert Stein says, this foreshadows “the dark cloud descending upon the Son of God, which will eventually lead to the cross.”2 Teaching the Text 1. The result of mission often is resistance and hostility. Again and again Jesus and the Gospel writers remind us that the mission task is not an easy one. What Jesus encountered will inevitably be experienced by his followers as well. As Jesus notes in Matthew 10:24–25, if the master is ...
... theme, not only in Jesus’s teaching but also throughout the New Testament. We saw some of Jesus’s teaching on this earlier (see “Teaching the Text” on 6:1–6), so here we consider some of the rest of the New Testament. In Acts hostility and suffering are everywhere. In Acts 4–5 the disciples are arrested twice and beaten with rods the second time, but they respond with joy “because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the name” (5:41). Both Stephen and James were martyred ...
... 6, they agree on one thing: the desire to arrest and kill Jesus. It is unusual for followers of Herod to be in Jerusalem, since Antipas ruled in Galilee and Perea, but this was Passover and Antipas himself was present (Luke 23:7–12). The main point is their hostile purpose: not to test Jesus but rather to trap him and denounce him before the people. 12:14 We know that you are a man of integrity. The fawning flattery seen in this verse was common in the first century, but this seems over the top (though ...
... hands on him,” further irony because Jesus is frequently depicted “laying hands on” people to heal them (5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:25) or to bestow a blessing (10:16); a different verb is used for “laid hands” here to show that it is a hostile act. Jesus’s compassionate acts are now reversed. 14:47 struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. In John 18:10 we learn that the person who does this is Simon Peter. Mark dramatically pictures the unnamed disciple taking out his sword and ...
... is no evidence myrrh added such qualities;2 Matthew 27:34 uses “gall” to bring out the allusion to Psalm 69:21: “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst,” where David’s enemies plot against him. So this is a hostile act from the soldiers (Ps. 69, perhaps Matthew) rather than an act of kindness from bystanders (perhaps Mark; cf. Prov. 31:6; b. Sanh. 43a: “to numb his senses”). The former makes slightly more sense, since the soldiers are in control at this point. Jesus refuses ...
... sense, and to “tempt” to do wrong. Both senses apply here, corresponding respectively to the intentions of God and of the devil. In biblical thinking the devil operates only within the overall sovereignty of God, and God can even sometimes use the devil’s hostile actions for his own good ends. This story is traditionally referred to as Jesus’s “temptation,” but that is perhaps to give too much weight to the devil’s aim over against God’s design: hence the term “testing” in the title for ...
... .1 from now on you will fish for people. Jesus’s declaration is addressed specifically to Simon, but it is clear from the following verse that James and John saw it as applying to them too. In Jeremiah 16:16 the same metaphor is used with a clearly hostile sense: the “fishermen” are to catch people for judgment. And that is a more natural sense: it is no blessing for a fish to be caught in order to be killed and eaten. But the Greek verb used here for “to fish” (z?gre?) more literally means “to ...
... Lev. 14) would attest to the man’s cure, so that he could be received back into society. The plural pronoun suggests that it is not a testimony to a skeptical “priest” (singular) about Jesus’s supernatural power. There has not yet been any suggestion of hostility to Jesus on the part of priests; his opponents in 5:17–26 will be Pharisees and scribes, not priests. 5:16 Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed. Luke tells us more about the priority of prayer in Jesus’s ministry than do ...
... and abuse “because of the Son of Man”; that is, this is the direct result of their loyalty to Jesus. Jesus is already aware that his ministry is rousing violent opposition, and he expects those who are identified with him to experience the same hostility. “Exclude you” denotes at least social ostracism, but possibly also that they are not welcome in the worshiping community (cf. the references to disciples being “put out of the synagogue” at a later date in John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). “Your name ...
... life for the heart of the other. . . . He was restored to life and he knew it and felt to the full all his renewed being.” Raskolnikov’s relationship with other prisoners in his barracks changes, and “other convicts, formerly so hostile, were already looking at him differently. He had even spoken to them and been answered pleasantly.”2This classic work illustrates powerfully the redemptive effect of love. Biography: Fyodor Dostoevsky. Philip Yancey, in his book Soul Survivor: How My Faith Survived ...