... replies to the two objections together in verses 62–63. First, what if they were to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before (v. 62)? Would that not convince them that he came down from heaven in the first place? To the hearers, such a notion was pure theory and imagination. Yet the readers of the Gospel would know and believe that the Son of Man did exactly that. “Do not hold on to me,” Jesus would later say to Mary Magdalene, “for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my ...
... expectation of a Messiah who is hidden or whose origin is unknown is attested in apocalyptic literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 48.6; 4 Ezra 13:51–52) and (perhaps) in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho 8.4 (though see note on 1:25). Possibly the roots of this notion are tied in with the roots of the title “Son of Man” and the association of that title with the Jewish Messiah.
... of the narrator. The righteous have seen Jesus’ day—and they will live! (cf. v. 56, Mark 12:27; note also that Abraham is assumed to be alive in God’s presence in Luke 16:22–31). For an example of Judaism’s struggle with the notion that even such a great man as Abraham finally had to face physical death, see The Testament of Abraham, trans. M. E. Stone (Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1972). 8:56 Your father Abraham: Contrast v. 39, where Jesus denies that Abraham is their father ...
... from God, against the followers of Jesus (cf. 15:18–25). It is from the “world” that the sheep need to be protected (cf. 16:33; 17:11, 14–16), and Jesus the shepherd will risk his life, even give his life, to protect and save them. The notion of the shepherd endangering his life for the sake of the sheep turns almost imperceptibly from a metaphor to a reality as the discourse unfolds. The picture in verse 11 is of a shepherd who lays down his life in defense of his sheep by fighting off the ...
... a message sent from a distance, neither is it said to be spoken to the disciples, and the disciples give no evidence of having heard it (contrast v. 7, where Jesus explicitly addresses “the disciples”). In any event, verses 4 and 40 are closely linked by the notion that the glory of God was displayed in the raising of Lazarus from the dead (cf. also the continuing vision promised to Jesus’ disciples according to 1:51). 11:44 Take off the grave clothes and let him go (lit., “loose him and let him go ...
... vv. 55–56), found him at Bethany (12:9), and finally bore witness to his miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead (12:17). To some extent, the continuity can be tested as we go along, but there is no way to prove (or disprove) the notion that the crowd came first from Ephraim. Additional Notes 11:47 The Sanhedrin, highest ruling body among the Jews in Judea, was composed of the chief priests, the elders or lay nobility of the people, and the scholars or scribes (including Pharisees), and was presided over ...
... festival (vv. 55–56), found him at Bethany (12:9), and finally bore witness to his miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead (12:17). To some extent, the continuity can be tested as we go along, but there is no way to prove (or disprove) the notion that the crowd came first from Ephraim. Embedded between the search for Jesus and the finding of him is the story of his anointing at Bethany by Mary (12:1–8). The narrator has already alluded to this incident in introducing Lazarus (11:2), but now recounts ...
... if they understand the “lifting up” as crucifixion, they are saying: The Law tells us that the Messiah will endure forever, but you say the “Son of Man” (by which we assume you mean the Messiah) will die by crucifixion (i.e., their problem is with the notion of a dying Messiah). The second alternative is the more likely. The crowd’s terminology echoes more closely Jesus’ words in 3:14 (“the Son of Man must be lifted up”) than his words in the present context (neither the title Son of Man nor ...
... into the world has the purpose of blinding as well as giving sight, and his verdict against the Pharisees coincides perfectly with the narrator’s verdict in the present passage against all who rejected Jesus’ message. But never in this Gospel does the notion of God’s choice or nonchoice of individuals for eternal life foreclose an appeal to their free will. Election, especially negative election, is always introduced after the fact, as an explanation of why someone did or did not believe. It is never ...
... have known me, you will know” (cf. GNB). Jesus’ immediate positive statement that from now on, you do know him and have seen him (i.e., the Father, v. 7b) and his surprised question, “Don’t you know me, Philip?” (v. 9), further support the notion that Jesus is assuming knowledge—not the lack of it—on the part of his disciples. In this respect their situation stands in contrast to that of the Pharisees in 8:19. 14:11 Believe on the evidence of the miracles (lit., “believe because of the ...
... thlipsis, v. 21), suggest a revelation that is visible both to the world and the church, and one that puts the world decisively to shame—a kind of culmination of the Spirit’s ministry as described in verses 8–11. All of these factors support the notion that the first little while of verse 16 refers to Jesus’ physical departure from this world in death, and the second, to his visible return to earth at this Second Coming (or Parousia, as many early Christians called it). The first little while is the ...
... as you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world (v. 18). This means that Jesus’ death is the key to the mission of which he has been speaking since the beginning of verse 14 (with the words, “I have given them your word …”). The notion that the death of Jesus is the only thing that makes a world mission possible for his disciples is already familiar to the reader of this Gospel from 10:15–16 (“I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep.… I must bring them also”), 12 ...
... of cannibalism! It is true that Jesus has fish of his own prepared for the meal (v. 9), but he also tells the disciples to bring some of the fish you have just caught (v. 10). An easy way to clear up the confusion would be to drop the notion of symbolism altogether, but a better way is to recognize that fish are used by the narrator in two distinct ways: first, as a metaphor for the new community brought into being as a result of the disciples’ mission (cf. the “one flock” of 10:16), and second, as ...
... of his trial and through which he bears witness to the visible world around him” (R. H. Gundry, “Sōma” in Biblical Theology: With Emphasis on Pauline Anthropology, p. 37). Cf. 1 Cor. 6:20, “honor God with your body”), where Paul is refuting the notion that bodily actions are ethically and religiously indifferent. 1:21 On the Damascus road Christ replaced Torah as the center of Paul’s life and thought; until then he might well have said, “For to me, to live is Torah.” He was now immediately ...
... make confession. But W. Carr (Angels and Principalities, pp. 86–89) regards it as “reasonably certain that the three adjectives are neuter rather than masculine,” the reference being “not so much to beings that inhabit the three regions as to the overall notion of universality of homage to God.” There is a notable parallel (which may indeed be dependent on the present passage) in Ignatius, To the Trallians 9:1, where it is affirmed in a credal sequence that Jesus Christ “was truly crucified and ...
... selective favoritism. Now this might seem to be in considerable tension with verse 15 until we remember that Deuteronomy has already explicitly excluded the idea that God’s election of Israel was some kind of favoritism (7:7; 9:4f.). Unfortunately, the very notion of divine election is still frequently caricatured and dismissed by Christians as self-selection dressed up as divine will, or, worse, divine favoritism. The statement of God’s love for Israel in verse 15 is bounded by (and so to be understood ...
... in 3:4ff. (the seed-bed for so much of the tradition that has grown up about the early and “good” Solomon), we must first read 1 Kings 3:1–3. And these are verses that provide us with a number of further grounds for questioning the notion that Solomon is presented in the early chapters of Kings as an unambiguously virtuous character. “The kingdom” is “firmly established.” What is the first thing that the new king does, after the dubious acts of 2:13–46? He makes an alliance with Pharaoh by ...
... this case, the servants seek to undermine a false interpretation of Elisha’s words (he spoke only of ritual cleansing) in order that a true interpretation will prevail (he spoke of a cure, using the language of ritual cleansing; cf. the similar play on the notions of ritual cleansing and true “health” in Luke 17:11–19). The fulfillment of Elisha’s promise in v. 10 (“your flesh will be restored”) was put in jeopardy by the poor listening skills of a great, but impatient, man (v. 12); it is made ...
... against them. Get relief and avenge myself sound very like each other in Hebrew and combine subjective feelings and objective justice. Yahweh will now get the relief of giving expression to a strongly-felt inner desire to express anger. “Avenge myself” adds the notion of fair punishment; it is a less emotional expression than the English one. I will turn my hand against you adds the idea of direct, careful, personal involvement. The hand that was designed to work for them and against their enemies is ...
... these things. The classic story that illustrates this reality describes Moses directing the heavenly forces while Joshua directs the earthly forces against Amalek (Exod. 17:8–13). And here heaven joins earth in manifesting the signs of calamity (v. 10). The notion that war and holiness can belong together may be a difficult one for us. It is certainly a dangerous one. Most wars are fought in the name of holiness. The collocation of ideas has consistently been appropriated ideologically. Leaders and ...
... its destiny. Specifically, this entails delivering Judah from its bondage to Babylon and vindicating it before the world. The fact that Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon will play a key part in the fulfillment of this commitment means that the notions of fulfilling a right purpose and of winning a military victory come to be closely associated with each other. Thus translators may render tsedeq “righteousness” or “victory,” though neither is very satisfactory. The former loses the dynamism of the word ...
... Notes 60:5a In NIV it seems that the city is responding with joy to the return of her children. But more literally v. 5 says, “Then you will look [or see] and shine, and your heart [or mind] will dread and swell, for the wealth. . . .” NIV introduces the notion of joy into the verb elsewhere translated by a word such as “fear” (12:2; 19:16, 17; 33:14; 44:8, 11; 51:13; and KJV here), but that verb suggests that the reaction is rather one of awe at what Yahweh is doing. NIV then omits the word ...
... the people by the prophet speaking on Yahweh’s part. It is in a lament that the bidding is addressed by people to Yahweh (e.g., Ps. 6:4; 80:14). Indeed, getting Yahweh to “turn” is a basic concern of a lament, related to the notion of gaining Yahweh’s attention (see v. 15). The two possible uses of this imperative illustrate the uncomfortable place where a prophet lived—between God and people, called to confront both. The outrageousness continues in verses 18–19. Only for a little while did the ...
... ” (“The Book of Ezekiel,” in NIB 6 [ed. L. Keck; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001], p. 1134, emphasis hers). Darr argues, as a result, against the claim that personal responsibility is set forth here; instead, Ezekiel is affirming the ancient Israelite notion of corporate responsibility. Still, Ezekiel certainly is personally responsible for his actions on Israel’s behalf, suggesting that something more is going on here than the restatement of traditional ideas. 3:25 The NIV they will tie with ropes; you ...
... . 4). While the meaning of this sign-act seems clear, the text nonetheless supplies an interpretation (vv. 5–17). The Lord had singled out Jerusalem as an example and honored her by setting her in the center of the nations, with countries all around her (v. 5). The notion that Zion was the great cosmic mountain at the center of the earth was evidently a part of Ezekiel’s priestly worldview (see also Ps. 48:1–2; Isa. 2:1–4//Mic. 4:1–3; Zech. 14:8–10). But, for Ezekiel, that centrality only serves ...