... that compromise the distinctiveness of Israel and reject the covenant sovereignty of Yahweh in the military sphere (vv. 5, 20). Though the literary account of the request in 1 Samuel obviously echoes the Deuteronomic phraseology, the Deuteronomic law is not itself negative or hostile to the people’s request. There is no harm in asking. The people ask other things of God that meet with approval (e.g., 12:20; 18:16f.). If the request for a king had been intrinsically incompatible with theocracy, it would ...
... that compromise the distinctiveness of Israel and reject the covenant sovereignty of Yahweh in the military sphere (vv. 5, 20). Though the literary account of the request in 1 Samuel obviously echoes the Deuteronomic phraseology, the Deuteronomic law is not itself negative or hostile to the people’s request. There is no harm in asking. The people ask other things of God that meet with approval (e.g., 12:20; 18:16f.). If the request for a king had been intrinsically incompatible with theocracy, it would ...
... that compromise the distinctiveness of Israel and reject the covenant sovereignty of Yahweh in the military sphere (vv. 5, 20). Though the literary account of the request in 1 Samuel obviously echoes the Deuteronomic phraseology, the Deuteronomic law is not itself negative or hostile to the people’s request. There is no harm in asking. The people ask other things of God that meet with approval (e.g., 12:20; 18:16f.). If the request for a king had been intrinsically incompatible with theocracy, it would ...
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... 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 ...
... off with a linear presentation of his descendants up to Ezer and Elead (7:20–21a). But then misfortune strikes (7:21b–23). The latter two sons were killed by the native-born men of Gath during a livestock raid. This probably hints at hostile relationships between the Ephraimites and some of the local inhabitants (i.e., peoples who had already occupied the land before the invasion of Israel from Egypt). After mourning the deceased, Ephraim and his wife started a new lineage, of whom three names are ...
... off with a linear presentation of his descendants up to Ezer and Elead (7:20–21a). But then misfortune strikes (7:21b–23). The latter two sons were killed by the native-born men of Gath during a livestock raid. This probably hints at hostile relationships between the Ephraimites and some of the local inhabitants (i.e., peoples who had already occupied the land before the invasion of Israel from Egypt). After mourning the deceased, Ephraim and his wife started a new lineage, of whom three names are ...
... off with a linear presentation of his descendants up to Ezer and Elead (7:20–21a). But then misfortune strikes (7:21b–23). The latter two sons were killed by the native-born men of Gath during a livestock raid. This probably hints at hostile relationships between the Ephraimites and some of the local inhabitants (i.e., peoples who had already occupied the land before the invasion of Israel from Egypt). After mourning the deceased, Ephraim and his wife started a new lineage, of whom three names are ...
... off with a linear presentation of his descendants up to Ezer and Elead (7:20–21a). But then misfortune strikes (7:21b–23). The latter two sons were killed by the native-born men of Gath during a livestock raid. This probably hints at hostile relationships between the Ephraimites and some of the local inhabitants (i.e., peoples who had already occupied the land before the invasion of Israel from Egypt). After mourning the deceased, Ephraim and his wife started a new lineage, of whom three names are ...
... off with a linear presentation of his descendants up to Ezer and Elead (7:20–21a). But then misfortune strikes (7:21b–23). The latter two sons were killed by the native-born men of Gath during a livestock raid. This probably hints at hostile relationships between the Ephraimites and some of the local inhabitants (i.e., peoples who had already occupied the land before the invasion of Israel from Egypt). After mourning the deceased, Ephraim and his wife started a new lineage, of whom three names are ...
... behest (1:1), speaking of Cyrus’ decree in line with 5:17; 6:3. He could now refer to the extra decree of Darius, with verses 8 and 11–12 in view. He even referred to the future king Artaxerxes, assuring his readers that he was not always as hostile as he was in 4:7–23. He could be thinking of the next phase in the ongoing story, Artaxerxes’ embellishment of the temple mentioned in 7:27. But we have seen that he had Nehemiah’s mission in mind in referring to a subsequent “decree” of Artaxerxes ...
... behest (1:1), speaking of Cyrus’ decree in line with 5:17; 6:3. He could now refer to the extra decree of Darius, with verses 8 and 11–12 in view. He even referred to the future king Artaxerxes, assuring his readers that he was not always as hostile as he was in 4:7–23. He could be thinking of the next phase in the ongoing story, Artaxerxes’ embellishment of the temple mentioned in 7:27. But we have seen that he had Nehemiah’s mission in mind in referring to a subsequent “decree” of Artaxerxes ...
... ” (NRSV). The parallel structure of v. 27 indicates that the number has not been preserved, unless the term of talents is to be revocalized as a dual, “two talents” (REB, NJB). 8:31 The word protected connotes a lack of anticipated hostility. A more careful translation is “delivered” (NRSV) or “saved” (REB, NJPS), implying that attacks did occur. Similarly in v. 22, “protect” means literally “help from” with the sense of “help in defending against.” 8:33 We weighed out is lit. a ...
... s Judean contacts were members of a family network by marriage and were his sworn political supporters. They lost no opportunity to commend him to Nehemiah and to report back Nehemiah’s stated views. Tobiah sent letters of a different character directly to Nehemiah—hostile letters meant to intimidate. We have not heard the last of Tobiah. Nehemiah was later to confiscate his apartment in the very precincts of the temple, given to him by a priestly member of the pro-Tobiah party (13:4–8). That report ...
... Temple community, which 1:1 suggested was the reference of Isaiah’s prophecies. This interest in both houses, parallel to that in Ezekiel 37, continues in verses 13–14. With daring, the vision looks for harmony between Ephraim and Judah, for a time when hostility and jealousy are at an end. This is a further expression of the dream in verses 6–9. This harmony does not extend to other nations (v. 14), though the concern there is with security and/or with the fulfillment of God’s promises regarding ...
... silence of death (Ps. 94:17; 115:17), so it sets a somber tone for the poem. The voice that addresses the prophet (v. 11b) comes from Seir in Edom, and the word dumah also resembles the word Edom (see NIV mg.), which will be addressed with hostility rather than sympathy in chapter 34. So a voice from one place of deathly silence calls to another place of deathly silence. The city’s watchman is someone who stands on a watchtower (v. 8). The words are similar in Hebrew, as they are in English, which further ...
... 9–11 are now brought into relationship with the problem in the community’s life to which verses 1–8 had once again spoken. They live in constant terror every day because of the wrath of the oppressor. Perhaps the Babylonians were more hostile to alien groups in their midst as Cyrus tightened his pincer around Babylon. That is often the dynamic of those circumstances. But perhaps much of the threat lay in the Judeans’ imagination. Either way, they are bidden to remember: (a) that Yahweh is their ...
... fear of other people, etc. For many people this list continues to grow over a lifetime--fear of heights, of closed-in spaces, fear of trains or planes, and many others. Fear is a universal emotion. Many of us, unfortunately, are bound by our fears. This is a hostile world for us. Everywhere we look we see chaos, death and decay and we are afraid. It is a terrible feeling to be afraid. We can be paralyzed by fear of such things as losing our job, our marriage, our health, our life. Matthew tells us that the ...
... to us, “Why you’re a SON OR DAUGHTER OF GOD! I can see it in your eyes. I can see it in the way you live. I can see it in your love for others. I can see it when others try to intimidate you and you return their hostility with love. I can see it in your good works for our community. I can see it in the way you treat your family. I know who you are--you are a child of God.” It’s good as we say good-bye to 2017 and welcome in the year ...
... the anger inward on themselves. There is much evidence that turning anger inward is a serious health hazard in terms of such things as high blood pressure, ulcers and some forms of cancer. Studies show that angry, cynical people die young. Men who score high for hostility on standard tests are four times more likely to die prematurely than men whose scores on such tests are low. Anger can be a deadly emotion. Does that mean that it is always wrong to be angry? Not at all. Anger, like all our emotions, is ...
... heart. It is the law of love. “A new command I give you,” said Jesus, “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.” 1 Collected from various Internet sources. 2. Ed Young, Against All Odds: Family Survival in a Hostile World (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1992). 3. John Ortberg, When the Game Is Over, It All Goes Back in the Box (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). 4. http://www.predigten.uni‑goettingen.de/archiv‑8/060326‑6‑e.html. 5. R. Kent Hughes, The Sermon on ...