... more sense (see the Additional Note on 3:16). On the other hand, characters do not always speak in stories as they do in real life, so it is best not to emend the text here. The words of their reply follow: We do not need to defend ourselves before you in this matter (3:16). This sounds a little defiant in English. It could be that they are not intending to be insolent; they are merely pleading “no contest.” They are acknowledging that they are guilty of refusing to bow before the image. Alternatively ...
... to his companions: Here the analogy extends beyond Jesus and David to include Jesus’ disciples too. That is, the issue includes not only Jesus but also the actions of his disciples in mission with him and in his name, and Jesus here defends their action by saying that he, like David, is authorized to involve his followers in his controversial actions. Again, we should assume that this was seen by early Christians as justification for their conducting their ministry even if it involved Sabbath violation ...
... so well. Additional Notes 20:27 Sadducees: The name is apparently derived from Zadok (2 Sam. 8:17). “They were priestly and lay aristocrats” (Fitzmyer, p. 1303). See HBD, pp. 891–92. They did not believe in the idea of resurrection. The idea of the resurrection was defended by Pharisees who often appealed to Exod. 6:4; 15:1; Num. 15:31; 18:28; Deut. 31:16. Fitzmyer (p. 1303) notes that “the rabbis also referred at times to non-pentateuchal parts of the OT: Job 19:26; Ps. 16:9, 11; Isa. 26:19 ...
... kingdom have acted with unbridled disrespect. Without social manners there is left anarchy and chaos, which are the marks of the Evil One (cf. Rom. 1:29–31) and not of Christ. 11:11–13 To this point of the interlude, John has defended the vital importance of the faithful congregation in any city: by such a testimony the congregation restrains evil and conveys the power of God’s reign to the surrounding society. Without such a testimony, the destructive powers of evil would rapidly increase to ...
... . Is the question whether gathering wood constitutes work on the Sabbath, or is the issue what kind of capital punishment is to be used? Or is the offense of gathering wood considered under the law against starting a fire on the Sabbath (Exod. 35:3)? The defendant comes before Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, but it is Moses who consults with God on such matters in the tabernacle, as readers know from Leviticus 24:10–23 and the conclusion of Numbers 7. The decision here is that the person is to ...
... marched alongside Achish’s Gittite forces and arrived with them at the mustering area around Aphek. The other Philistine commanders were surprised that Achish had brought Hebrew troops with him when their expedition involved fighting against the Hebrews. Achish staunchly defends both David and his right to bring him, protesting that David has betrayed Saul and been loyal to Gath for more than a year. However, Achish is overruled by the other commanders, who are correctly suspicious of David’s motives ...
... of God’s presence with him was reinforced by the growing stability of his reign, evidenced not least by the increase in trade relationships with surrounding powers. He was able to have a palace worthy of the name, and he could pay for it and defend it. However, the link between these narratives and the Deuteronomic kingship code that was so positively seen in verse 2 continues more negatively. The ideal king was forbidden to take many wives (Deut. 17:17), but David did exactly that, for national political ...
... of God’s presence with him was reinforced by the growing stability of his reign, evidenced not least by the increase in trade relationships with surrounding powers. He was able to have a palace worthy of the name, and he could pay for it and defend it. However, the link between these narratives and the Deuteronomic kingship code that was so positively seen in verse 2 continues more negatively. The ideal king was forbidden to take many wives (Deut. 17:17), but David did exactly that, for national political ...
... David as king and then received his father’s kiss), when the supplicants bowed down, Absalom would reach out and kiss them. This may have been a somewhat cynical manipulation of the people’s affections, but it worked. They responded to this “people’s defender” approach, and Absalom by his stratagems won many people over to his side. 15:7–9 David had no inkling of Absalom’s real plans, no inkling that it was appropriate to speak of belonging to one side or the other. Perhaps he was encouraged ...
... that they posed no threat (see additional note on 2 Sam. 3:8). 16:13 Their destination was presumably “the fords in the desert” (15:28), the crossing point at the Jordan River a little north of the Dead Sea that would provide immediate refreshment and could be fairly easily defended. It was far enough away to be safe from a full-scale attack but near enough to be quickly reached by the spies Jonathan and Ahimaaz.
... that they posed no threat (see additional note on 2 Sam. 3:8). 16:13 Their destination was presumably “the fords in the desert” (15:28), the crossing point at the Jordan River a little north of the Dead Sea that would provide immediate refreshment and could be fairly easily defended. It was far enough away to be safe from a full-scale attack but near enough to be quickly reached by the spies Jonathan and Ahimaaz.
... there. Additional Notes 1:29 Lamb of God: C. H. Dodd (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel [Cambridge: University Press, 1958], pp. 230–38) argued for a Jewish background to the title from apocalyptic references to the Messiah as a powerful young ram who defends the flock of God against its adversaries and puts them to flight. This is an appealing suggestion and one that may well be correct, but the evidence is meager (only Enoch 90.38 and Testament of Joseph 19.8, the latter of which may actually ...
... means to have God’s life as a secure possession that cannot be taken away. In itself, the phrase does not include the notion that one has the power to confer that life on others, but such translations as “source of life” (both GNB and Jerusalem Bible) can be defended on the basis of the context, especially the parallelism with v, 21. 5:27 The Son of Man: Although the expression Son of Man in Greek lacks the definite article (the only place in the Gospels where this is so), it is still to be taken as a ...
... 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 ...
... with Israel’s hardened heart “to this day” (v. 14), and a physical transformation in the body (v. 18). Interestingly enough, merkabah mysticism included both aspects as goals of ascending to the divine throne-chariot. 4:1–6 In 2:14–4:6, Paul defends the legitimacy of his apostleship by focusing on the glory of God that his ministry mediates. In the final section of this argument (4:1–6) Paul asserts the integrity of his ministry and claims that those who reject his apostleship and his gospel ...
... , other revelations and visions should not be discounted (cf. Acts 16:9; 18:9; 22:17–18; 23:11; 27:23). The vision that Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 12:2–4 (and others like it) is crucial to Paul’s claim to apostolic authority, which he is defending in chapters 10–13. Paul describes himself as a man in Christ (en Christ?). Assuming the unity of the letter as it stands, in Christ recalls 2 Corinthians 2:14, 17, the only other place in the letter in which the apostle uses the phrase in Christ in ...
... . Unlike the hypocrites of Matthew 6:1–5, the truly wise know how to act out of humility: They are not building their own reputations. Like Moses (Num. 12:3) and Jesus (Matt. 11:29; 21:5; 2 Cor. 10:1), they are not interested in defending themselves. They avoid conflict and especially avoid advertising themselves. Humility is the mark of the truly wise. 3:14 On the other hand, if instead of being marked by a holy lifestyle, meekness, and good deeds, the Christian is marked by a heart that harbors bitter ...
James 5:1-6, James 4:13-17, James 5:7-12, James 5:13-20
Understanding Series
Peter H. Davids
... , not to imply he might not be speaking truth elsewhere, but to state that no matter how unbelievable his point might seem God knew it was true. Paul is so far from having two levels of truthfulness in language that in 2 Cor. 1:5–2:4 he defends himself for changing travel plans. Once he announced the plans he was bound by them unless other, then unknown, weighty matters came up later. Jesus’ saying in the Greek text and in some translations has a doubled Yes, and No. Some argue that this is a substitute ...
James 5:7-12, James 4:13-17, James 5:1-6, James 5:13-20
Understanding Series
Peter H. Davids
... , not to imply he might not be speaking truth elsewhere, but to state that no matter how unbelievable his point might seem God knew it was true. Paul is so far from having two levels of truthfulness in language that in 2 Cor. 1:5–2:4 he defends himself for changing travel plans. Once he announced the plans he was bound by them unless other, then unknown, weighty matters came up later. Jesus’ saying in the Greek text and in some translations has a doubled Yes, and No. Some argue that this is a substitute ...
James 5:13-20, James 4:13-17, James 5:1-6, James 5:7-12
Understanding Series
Peter H. Davids
... , not to imply he might not be speaking truth elsewhere, but to state that no matter how unbelievable his point might seem God knew it was true. Paul is so far from having two levels of truthfulness in language that in 2 Cor. 1:5–2:4 he defends himself for changing travel plans. Once he announced the plans he was bound by them unless other, then unknown, weighty matters came up later. Jesus’ saying in the Greek text and in some translations has a doubled Yes, and No. Some argue that this is a substitute ...
... 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 ...
... on there would be enmity between the serpent and the woman, between the offspring of both. “Offspring” (seed) is singular, connoting all offspring. Serpentine creatures would strike at the heel of humans, inflicting harm, but the offspring of women would defend themselves by striking a blow, often a fatal one, on the head of these creatures. Thus God gave humans the hope of mastering frightful serpents. Metaphorically, this statement meant that humans could rise above natural disasters and forces of ...
... money to Joseph’s steward (43:15–23). During the meal at Joseph’s house (43:24–34), Joseph recognizes Benjamin and feasts with his brothers. Later the brothers are detained under suspicion of stealing the overseer’s divining cup (44:1–13); they defend their integrity before Joseph (44:14–34). Joseph then identifies himself to his brothers (45:1–24), and the brothers return to Canaan (45:25–28). 45:1–2 No longer able to control his emotions, Joseph ordered all his attendants to leave. He ...
... battle for the freedom and life of the firstborn. The Lord’s firstborn (Israel) was held captive and dying. Only a similar measure against Egypt’s firstborn would purchase Israel’s freedom. For the first time here, Scripture portrays God as a parent defending a child. The word “worship” (ʿabad), which also means to serve as a servant, provides a more subtle contrast. Israel was the Lord’s servant, not Pharaoh’s. 4:24–26 A description of an assault by the Lord and Zipporah’s response ...
... abandon his commitment. This people were Yahweh’s people, because Yahweh had made them so. (b) The people’s status was founded even further back in God’s oath to the ancestors. So let God remember them, as a judge “remembers” factors in favor of a defendant (v. 27). God could not abandon the promise to Abraham without breaking God’s own oath, sworn on God’s own very being (Gen. 15). It would be self-destructive, (c) And finally, in a bold stroke, Moses appeals to God’s jealousy for the honor ...