... Mandate 3.1–2 commands truth, “so that the spirit which God caused to dwell in this flesh will be found truthful by all men” (cf. Mandate 5.2–5; 10.2.6; 10.3.2). See further S. S. Laws, “Does Scripture Speak in Vain?” which takes a contrary opinion; or O. J. F. Seitz, “Two Spirits in Man: An Essay in Biblical Exegesis.” 4:6 The passage from Prov. 3:34 is also used by 1 Peter to argue for mutual submission and humility in a context of resisting the devil (5:5). The passage is used in 1 ...
... has been generally accepted down the long centuries by the church, then the student should be prepared to humbly reconsider his or her view. Is a supposed insight truly the outcome of fresh light from the Holy Spirit, or is it in fact only a personal opinion? It has always been easy enough for a reader to be carried along by preconceived ideas about some aspect of Christian doctrine, rather than by the Holy Spirit, who is operating in the church, the body of believers as a whole, as well as in individuals ...
... burial. Satan, in his ancient role of accuser of God’s people (Rev. 12:10), was seeking to prove Moses’ guilt. In response to the charge, Michael did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against Satan. Barclay (DSB, p. 188) expresses the opinion of most commentators that Jude means: “If the greatest of the good angels refused to speak evil of the greatest of the evil angels, even in circumstances like that, surely no human being may speak evil of any angel.” This interpretation takes accusation ...
... of this commandment by M. L. King regarding stealing a man’s freedom in Anderson, “The Eighth Commandment.” 20:16 Later specific laws address many concerns that corrupt justice: do not help the wicked by being a malicious witness; don’t be swayed by popular opinion; don’t favor people just because they are poor (23:1–3); don’t deny justice to the poor in a lawsuit; don’t accept a bribe for testimony; don’t oppress resident aliens, for you were aliens in Egypt (23:6–9); don’t pervert ...
... al imperfective) can be translated, “may be put to death.” The NIV translates the same words “shall surely be put to death” and “must be put to death.” While “may” is not likely, it is grammatically possible, functioning as a strong rhetorical deterrent. Some rabbinic opinion takes mot yumat to be God’s prerogative (“he will surely die”) and the isolated yumat an execution by human judges (e.g., 35:2; on the other hand, see Num. 35:21; Deut. 17:6; 19:15). Verse 17 does not specify the ...
... false witness (20:13). A more specific, court-based, version follows: “Do not help (lit., “join hands with”) a wicked man by being a malicious witness” (Lev. 19:11, 16; Deut. 19:15–21). The next two commands concern the power of public opinion and the necessity of impartiality for a witness or a judge: “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong . . . impartiality for a witness or ado not pervert justice by siding with the crowd.” “Crowd” may also mean “the mighty” (rabbim). In either case ...
... a wife. She did have some legal rights, and her offspring were generally considered legal heirs. In this case, the Levite does not appear to have a wife, so she could have been essentially the same as a wife. Commentators differ in their opinion about this matter. Ultimately, either view is an argument from silence and therefore unprovable. At any rate, her exact status is not important to the storyline. 19:2 But she was unfaithful to him: A textual variant here has elicited much discussion, with strong ...
... and Levites (6:54–81). 6:1–15 The family list starts with the presentation of three sons of Levi, namely, Gershon, Kohath and Merari. Although this section explicitly mentions only one person who served as priest (6:10), some scholars are of the opinion that it lists the names of the so-called main priests or high priests who served in Jerusalem, tracing their ancestry back to one specific son of Levi, namely, Kohath. Others see this merely as a list of priests (not necessarily high priests, although ...
... The narrative about Saul’s death is the only remaining part of the elaborate description of this king’s life in the Deuteronomist’s version. The reader might wonder why the Chronicler chose to present Saul’s story in this truncated way. In my opinion, this presentation is entirely related to the way in which the Benjaminites feature in Chronicles. Saul was a prominent member of the Benjaminite tribe (as seen in the genealogy of 1 Chron. 8:33–40). This association might be the key to understanding ...
... ” (1 Chronicles 10–29, p. 545). Since the Chronicler reorganized his source material from 2 Sam. 5:7–23:7, he has also brought the capturing of Jebus and the lists of mighty men following in 1 Chron. 11:10 together. Dirksen is of the opinion that this is done to establish a direct link between David’s kingship and the capture of Jerusalem (1 Chronicles, p. 159). Manfred Oeming offers an interesting explanation for why the Chronicler omitted the reference to the blind and the lame here. Second Sam. 5 ...
... are sometimes unconvincing, it remains unlikely that the Chronicler envisioned 1 Chron. 13 and 1 Chron. 15–16, respectively, as separate units. That 2 Sam. 6 was quoted in both these sections points in the direction of some sort of a compositional unity at least. In my opinion, the peculiar position of 1 Chron. 14 should be explained in another way. It might be that 1 Chron. 14 (quoting from 2 Sam. 5:11–25) was detached from its original position after 1 Chron. 11:9 (quoting from 2 Sam. 5:1–3, 6–10 ...
... with a dynasty. The Chronicler’s change in this case was probably meant to show that Yahweh is now referring to David’s dynasty. Willi, however, argues that the expression should not be understood as “dynasty” but rather as “temple.” He is of the opinion that the Chronicler is referring to the divine kingdom here, which includes not only Israel but also the whole world of nations. The earthly anchor for the divine kingdom is the temple and not an earthly dynasty (Willi, “Gibt es in der Chronik ...
... the people of Israel and have adopted their religion. This category of people remained without legal rights in society, however. Many legal stipulations in the Pentateuch therefore give them protection together with widows and orphans. Klein is of the opinion that the Chronicler’s involvement of “aliens” in the temple-building process is an attempt to show “that only non-Israelites served as forced laborers” (1 Chronicles, p. 432), information that could have been significant for the Chronicler ...
... , p. 455), subordination would have been indicated with the Hebrew expression ʿal yad (instead of leyad, used here), a term that is used in quite a few instances in Chronicles. Dirksen does not agree with this view. He is of the opinion that the expression indeed denotes subordination. But he adds: “Of course this does not mean less respect. The writer holds that priests and Levites both have their indispensable function within the order of the cult, while emphasizing only the prerogatives of the ...
... note. The translators seem to have derived this from the Hb. nsk; skk seems to convey the sense better. 8:30 There are arguments for “artisan” and for “nursling” as the meaning of the difficult Hb. word ʾmwn. The range of opinions and their arguments are well surveyed by H. P. Rüger, “ʾAmôn—Pflegekind: zur Auslegungsgeschichte von Pry 8:30a,” in Ubersetzung und Deutung (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1977), pp. 154–63. Rüger himself opts for nursling (Pflegekind), but there is no consensus ...
... character of wisdom and the influence of Israel’s neighbors, especially Egypt. There can be no doubt that this section has been influenced by the Egyptian text known as Teaching of Amenemope (about 1100 B.C.E.), but there is considerable difference of opinion on the extent and manner of the influence. There is a certain concensus on the following points. The Hebrew is dependent upon the Egyptian from 22:17 to 23:11. Although the number “thirty” seems assured as the correct reading in 22:20 ...
... for the accomplishment of his purpose. Along with the action, God also speaks to Jeremiah with an explanation. He has put his words in Jeremiah’s mouth. In essence, this unit tells the reader that Jeremiah’s words to follow are not to be understood as the opinion or advice of a mere human, but rather as God’s very words. Verse 10 then gives the divine motivation for this action, and it is double-edged. There is a positive and a negative purpose. As with Jeremiah’s oracles that follow, there is an ...
... Jezebel promote the worship of Baal with the result that God withholds the rains for a long period of time (see 1 Kgs. 17:1). The people call God their Father and expect him to eventually calm down. Again, as at the time of Elijah, the people “waver between two opinions” (1 Kgs. 18:21). They call God their Father, but they continue to do evil by breaking the law. “Faith by itself, if not accompanied by action, is dead” (Jas. 2:13).
... of this Judean king and Nebuchadnezzar’s first year in Daniel 1:1. In addition, it is claimed that the Babylonians did not come to Jerusalem until the fifth year of Jehoiakim (Jer. 36:9). A surface reading of the Babylonian Chronicle appears to support this opinion. According to Hartman and Di Lella (The Book of Daniel [New York: Doubleday, 1978], p. 48), the second-century author of Daniel was confused and misled by his understanding of 2 Chronicles 36:6–7 in connection with 2 Kings 24:1. D. J. Wiseman ...
... decision, Azariah (see comment on 42:1–6) and Johanan, the two named leaders, as well as all the arrogant men erupted with an angry rejection of Jeremiah’s proposal to stay in Judah. The arrogance, of course, is a function of their putting their own opinion above that of the Lord’s will. In essence, they accuse Jeremiah of being a false prophet (You are lying! The LORD has not sent you to say). They also curiously accuse him of being a puppet of Baruch (Baruch son of Neriah is inciting you), whom ...
... The Heb. sentence uses the same terminology as 2 Sam. 24:4, “the king’s word . . . overruled Joab.” Verse 13 here could be translated, “Your words have overruled me.” As David’s decision prevailed over Joab’s counsel, so the people’s opinions had overruled God’s commands. They followed their own counsel rather than God’s will. 3:16 The NIV translation, A scroll of remembrance was written before the Lord concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name, interprets this scroll as ...
... of his faith remains in doubt. His remark (v. 51) is no ringing confession, but merely a plea for fairness. He appears in the narrative more to demonstrate the Pharisees’ intransigence than to mark a stage in his own spiritual development. When their opinions are gently questioned even by one of their own, they are quick to brand the questioner, half in mockery, as a Galilean (v. 52). The intent is not to probe seriously Nicodemus’ family background but to rebuke his apparent sympathies with Jesus the ...
... so the price was not a heavy burden for him. In fact, he had received a thousand shekels from Abimelech of Gerar (20:16). Ephron played down the price by saying that the amount should not stand between the two of them. His expression means that, in his opinion, paying such an amount will not be a hardship on Abraham. Then, with a command, he told Abraham to bury his deceased. 23:16 Abraham quickly put an end to the bargaining by agreeing to Ephron’s terms. He then weighed out the exact amount of silver to ...
... his brothers not to quarrel on the way. His gentle admonition reminded them that his living in Egypt was a result of their quarreling in the past. Certainly Joseph did not want them to delay in bringing his father to Egypt because of a difference of opinion. It is also possible to read the line, “do not be agitated on the way” (Wenham, Genesis 16–50, p. 430); that is, they were not to become apprehensive about returning to Egypt. 45:25–28 On reaching Canaan, the brothers reported to Jacob that ...
... is ill and more concerned to gain a prognosis about his future than to get revenge for the past. There is evident irony in the fact that a foreign king knows well enough to consult the LORD (v. 8) in such circumstances, whereas the Israelite Ahaziah had sought the opinion of Baal-Zebub (2 Kgs. 1:2). Hazael is sent with an extravagant gift (forty camel-loads of wares) to smooth his way. His approach is respectful, like a son to his father (v. 9; cf. 2 Kgs. 6:21). The answer he receives is puzzling (see the ...