... obediently observe the Passover in all its detail at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 9:6–14 The Passover observance raises an issue. Some were unable to celebrate the Passover . . . because they were ceremonially unclean. They had come into contact with a dead body. Participation in sacrificial meals was dangerous and thus prohibited for those who were unclean (see Lev. 7:20–21). The group thus appeals to Moses and Aaron. This circumstance was a new one and so there was no precedent ...
... work of the tabernacle. The cover will remind the people of this incident and stress that to burn incense before the LORD is the priests’ prerogative only! Eleazar, Aaron’s son, does as he is instructed. A concern that the high priest not have any contact with death (Lev. 21:10–12) probably accounts for the choice of Eleazar rather than Aaron. 16:41–50 The final section of the chapter describes the popular response to the events. The people grumbled against Moses and Aaron because of the deaths on ...
... in the right and therefore Saul in the wrong. However, Saul’s response in this instance (vv. 16–21) shows that he feels remorse at misunderstanding David but not that he feels humiliated. 24:16 David was Saul’s son-in-law, but in the earlier stages of their contact the relationship between them was even closer than that (16:21–22). Saul did appear to regard David as a son. David sought to meet Saul’s needs as a son for a father, and Saul furthered David’s interests as a father for a son. It made ...
... are unable to recognize him, Job demands to be seen and acknowledged as a living human being whose suffering and words deserve a compassionate response. But now . . . look at me, he cries, implying that the friends are having a difficult time maintaining eye contact, just as we are tempted to look away from those we meet who have suffered horrible disfigurement. This failure to see Job enables them to keep their tenuous hold on their carefully ordered world that would collapse if they ever acknowledged the ...
... people of the East” (1:3), Job had been much sought out for his wisdom and generosity (4:3–4; 29:2–25). But his suffering brought all that to an end as those who had been eager to approach him now hang back in fear of making contact (30:1, 9–12). Zophar envisions a possible future day when a repentant Job will once again hold audience with those who seek his support. Those in influential positions in Christian service who have fallen through their own sinful failings can testify to the truth of this ...
... , and the context of the rest of the book (e.g., “people of the East” in 1:3). It is probable that Eliphaz speaks here of an early, unadulterated time in his own tribal history during which native wisdom was uninfluenced by any foreign contact and could thus be considered pure. Eliphaz, as a result, claims to be reporting authentic, unadulterated wisdom traditions in contrast to the newfangled ideas Job put forward. 15:20 Rather than anticipating some future judgment meted out on the wicked as we have ...
... encounter with God, “with my own eyes.” The emphatic structure of the verse places the pronoun “I” (Heb. ʾani) before the verb to mean I myself. According to Job’s heartfelt desire, this seeing would be direct and intimately personal contact with God. In a counter to the circumstances of verse 15, where even the least intimate participants in Job’s household consider him a “stranger” (Heb. zar) and an “alien” (Heb. nokri)—persons outside the social and religious community of Israel ...
... verse 30 that those who are “not innocent” are those who acknowledge their guilt like their counterparts in the preceding verse. In both of these instances, however, the effective factor in motivating God to gracious action is Job’s ability to contact and influence God through restored relationship. While Eliphaz seems to return at the end of his speech to his belief that Job can be restored to right relationship with God, and thus experience a renewed effectiveness in intermediation for others, the ...
... )? By contrast, says Bildad, a man is a maggot and a worm. These terms describe insect larvae that invade plants and meal (toleʿa, Exod. 16:20; Jonah 4:7; Deut. 28:29; Exod. 25:4), rotting meat, or corpses (rimmah, Exod. 16:24). The contact with dead flesh is especially repugnant and symbolic of death and uncleanness. Calling humans by these terms is declaring their essential sinfulness, deserving of judgment. Additional Notes 25:4 It is a bit odd that, in 9:2, NIV translates ʾenosh as “mortal,” while ...
... animals and the wild beasts. No part of the world lies outside his rule. No hostile forces exist beyond his authority.” 38:39–41 Do you hunt the prey for the lioness? God’s providence includes the animal world with which humans have little contact and for which they have less concern. Here, like a heavenly zookeeper, God sees to the needs of “the lioness” and satisfies the hunger of the lions. Because lions are a threat, tearing cattle and humans alike, humans avoid or destroy them. Humans must ...
... As its name suggests (Galilee means a “ring” or “circuit”), it was surrounded by Gentiles (Phoenicians to the west, Syrians on the north and east, and Samaritans to the south). Judea was mountainous and isolated, but Galilee lay open to all sorts of contacts with the wider world. It was there in northern Palestine that Jesus began his public ministry. Matthew says that Jesus did not stay in Nazareth (none of the synoptic writers record anything that Jesus did during that visit to his home town) but ...
... the two is that in Matthew the centurion himself comes to Jesus, whereas in Luke he first sends a delegation of Jews from the local synagogue and subsequently a group of friends. It may be that Matthew in his shorter version passes over the original contact and that Luke does not bother to say that the centurion went with his friends to meet Jesus just outside Capernaum. The first-person discourse in Luke (7:6–8) certainly implies that the centurion went out to meet Jesus. The Roman officer was probably ...
... , the hero is usually called “Daniel” (the only exception is Dan. 10:1), perhaps because he speaks of the visions in the first person. In other words, in the narratives of the first half of the book (Daniel 1–6), the emphasis is on the contacts and conflicts with the Babylonians, so it is natural to use the Babylonian names more. By way of contrast, in the second half of the book (Daniel 7–12), the prophet is represented as having visions, which he recounts. Naturally he would prefer his Hebrew ...
... who failed to obey the king. In other words, they were only doing their duty. However, the biblical writer may have intentionally mentioned Chaldeans instead of, say, satraps or prefects as a way of highlighting the contrast between the Jews, who are in contact with God, and the incompetent advisers who follow false religious practices and are charlatans with respect to divine power. Also, if we connect chapter 3 with chapters 1 and 2, where the Jews are promoted over others (1:20; 2:48), then professional ...
... he uses plural imperatives, as is the case in Isaiah 40:1–2 (see Cross, “Council of Yahweh,” pp. 274–77). Because Nebuchadnezzar’s tree fails to bear the fruit of humility before God, it draws the wrath and judgment of God. Perhaps this is a point of contact with the NT, for John the Baptist rebukes the religious leaders of his day for not bearing the fruit of repentance: “The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into ...
... a fool that he does not see through their plot and cannot do anything about it once he realizes his mistake; he is a prisoner of his own law. This is further evidence that this story is not meant to be a historical record. It has some points of contact with history: there was a king named Darius; there were satrapies. But the writer plays with the tradition, using it as the backdrop for his message. As already noted, his goal is not to teach history as such but to warn his audience to be faithful even unto ...
... is not to be overlooked that all the parallel Gospel accounts agree that Jesus touched the man (1:41; Luke 5:13; Matt. 8:3). The point of mentioning this seems to be to show that Jesus not only healed the man but also established immediate social contact with him. In doing this, Jesus could be seen as actually violating the laws about ritual purity for the sake of healing the man. No doubt Mark wanted his readers to see the similarity of this action to Jesus’ welcome of other “outcasts,” such as tax ...
... known for their failure to live by the religious law of Judaism, apparently in some major matters. We must understand that generally in the ancient Near Eastern lands sharing a meal was considered a significant and even an intimate social contact, establishing a bond among those who partook. Among ancient religious Jews, eating with a person implied religious acceptance of that person. There is every reason to believe that Jesus shared this view and that his eating with these “sinners” was intended ...
... with the eloquent canticles and speeches uttered by some of the major figures in his infancy narrative (the Magnificat, 1:46–55; the Benedictus, 1:68–79; the Angelic Anthem, 2:13–14; and the Nunc Dimittis, 2:28–32). Nevertheless, there are numerous significant points of contact between the Matthean and Lucan accounts. Jesus’ birth is during the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5; Matt. 2:1); Mary is only engaged to Joseph (Luke 1:27, 34; 2:5; Matt. 1:18); Joseph is a descendant of David (Luke 1:27 ...
... with the eloquent canticles and speeches uttered by some of the major figures in his infancy narrative (the Magnificat, 1:46–55; the Benedictus, 1:68–79; the Angelic Anthem, 2:13–14; and the Nunc Dimittis, 2:28–32). Nevertheless, there are numerous significant points of contact between the Matthean and Lucan accounts. Jesus’ birth is during the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5; Matt. 2:1); Mary is only engaged to Joseph (Luke 1:27, 34; 2:5; Matt. 1:18); Joseph is a descendant of David (Luke 1:27 ...
... with the eloquent canticles and speeches uttered by some of the major figures in his infancy narrative (the Magnificat, 1:46–55; the Benedictus, 1:68–79; the Angelic Anthem, 2:13–14; and the Nunc Dimittis, 2:28–32). Nevertheless, there are numerous significant points of contact between the Matthean and Lucan accounts. Jesus’ birth is during the reign of Herod the Great (Luke 1:5; Matt. 2:1); Mary is only engaged to Joseph (Luke 1:27, 34; 2:5; Matt. 1:18); Joseph is a descendant of David (Luke 1:27 ...
... officer’s servant (7:1–10); the second is about the raising of the widow’s son (7:11–17); and the third is John’s question and Jesus’ answer (7:18–35). 7:11–17 This story, found only in Luke’s Gospel, reveals several points of contact with the Elijah/Elisha stories as well (Tiede, pp. 151–52). The most noteworthy parallels include: (1) the setting in Nain (Luke 7:11), which may be an allusion to the ancient city of Shunem (2 Kings 4:8; see note below); (2) arrival at the town gate (Luke ...
... Pesiqta Rabbati 4.2); translation based on William G. Braude, Pesikta Rabbati, 2 vols., Yale Judaica 18 (New Haven: Yale University, 1968), vol. 2, pp. 84–85. In Luke’s account of Jesus’ ascension (Acts 1:2–11), there are possible points of contact with both the Elijah and Moses ascension traditions. Just before the risen Christ ascends, his apostles asks: “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (v. 6). This question probably echoes Elijah tradition (see Mal. 4:5–6 ...
... walk over without knowing it. That is, they are like graves that have become overgrown and so are able to hide their corruption and uncleanness from people. Because of their mask of religiosity people do not realize that they have come into contact with corruption (Fitzmyer, p. 949). With vv. 45–46 (which Luke alone has) the diatribe shifts its attention from the Pharisees to the experts in the law (lit. “lawyers”) who have felt the sting of Jesus’ words also. Through their numerous, complicated ...
... obediently observe the Passover in all its detail at twilight on the fourteenth day of the first month. 9:6–14 The Passover observance raises an issue. Some were unable to celebrate the Passover . . . because they were ceremonially unclean. They had come into contact with a dead body. Participation in sacrificial meals was dangerous and thus prohibited for those who were unclean (see Lev. 7:20–21). The group thus appeals to Moses and Aaron. This circumstance was a new one and so there was no precedent ...